The only problem with the new bankruptcy bill is that it doesn't grandfather old debt.
Creditors extended credit under the old law and consumers accepted credit under the old law. Therefore that should be the obligation without the new changes. The new changes should only apply to new debts.
You've never worked in an enterprise enviroment have you? Tar-ing files that are in use just doesn't work. You get inconsistent data. Come back when you've had some real work experience or at least get a little cleverer than 'tar'.
Obviously a surprising number of DVDs in your collection happen to be **** PORN **** (It isn't a large number, but it is a non-zero number, say a dozen or so out of a hundred.)
Reverse engineering is studying someone elses solution to a problem and solving the problem using the same solution.
Eg. if this were a bridge over a canyon you can observe that cars are able to drive over the bridge and it doesn't collapse. You can then create a new bridge that is an exact duplicate of the current bridge. Or you can create another bridge that also doesn't collapes when cars drive over it.
You all bitch and moan about corporations collecting your private information. Now why the fuck would you be voluntarily sending them your DNA? Putzes.
No, I think the prime example of sensationalism is when the FSF says that "if you don't use the GPL the evil corporations can take your code and make it non-free."
Yeah and someone who is better looking, has a bigger cock, or more money to fund the stage show will come along and crush you like a little grape being run over by a hummer with your own music. Yeah, give it all away. Escrow my ass, the whole idea is stupid. The same people who can't be trusted to pay for music now, won't trust you to produce something that doesn't suck ass.
Here's a business model:
1) Spend money, time and effort to create something.
2) Release it independantly on the net, through your website. Don't include DRM because that's going to offend some anti-DRM punks who'll then promptly go on some kind of crusade to fuck you over.
3) Watch as less than 1% of the people who listen to your music give you any money.
4) Declare bankruptcy (better hurry, cause it's getting harder.)
5) Get a real job producing information that is more difficult to reproduce (hamburgers, frenchfries, cars, hinges, etc.)
6) Die bitter because nobody wants to pay you to do anything you actually want to do.
The moderators on this site are complete morons, or perhaps they are like the editors and just don't actually read the site. But the fact is, it's a recurring theme here that digital copies don't deprive anyone of anything.
Many of those documents have been manually transcribed, proof-read and reformatted into HTML or PDF documents by various volunteer members of the FOSS community, on their own time.
You fail to understand an important fact. Someone's labor in producing a piece of information has zero value and they deserve absolutely no compensation unless I deprive them of something physical. There are a couple of websites that adhere to this: website 1, and website 2.
I understand now, you're an idiot. The issue isn't with the recipients of the code and license. It's with the authors of the code, those who are granting the license.
All of you ranting is based on the fact that you just don't get it. You have no idea of what the problem is.
I'll spell it out for you. A developer choosing to release software under an unmodified GPL v2 license effectively gives the FSF an unrestricted, perpetual right to sublicense in any fashion the FSF desires. At a simple level, there's no problem, developers trusted the FSF. Then the FSF came up with the GFDL, which instead of guaranteeing freedom, guarantees that you will join their cause and propagate their message regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
Exactly, a more free licence, hence making the code more free, which is what I said was the only thing which could be done.
The license could be anything. They could add invariant sections. They could add a clause that says all derivatives or anything the incorporates the software must have "GNU/" prepended. It's not a merge, it's a wholesale replacement.
Have you considered reading what you reply to?
Have you ever considered that you are just plain wrong?
Wrong. The clause doesn't say "this license and any future addendums that may be necessary to tweak the spirit of this license." It says "this license, or any future version." It's a wholesale swap of licenses. Not a merge.
Ok, the FFS seems to be quite trustworthy at the moment...
FFS is more "trustworthy" (I personally would use stabile, robust, etc.) than EXT2FS. It's been more rigorously tested and designed.
(Hint: It's funny if you are a nerd, you retarded moderators.)
...the only thing which can be done is to make the code more free.
No, the "or any later version" clause basically says, you can use this license or any license that the FSF chooses to release and call GPL v{n+1}. That v{n+1} license could be:
1. You can use this code for anything you like and do anything you like with it, without credit or compensation to any of the original copyright holders.
And then I could come along, being a complete and total asshole who wants nothing more than to fuck you over and shit all over your belief system, and choose to use v{n+1} of the license, take your code, slap it into a nice plastic box and stick a label on it: AHA's Goat Fuckingly Great Program, and sell it and make millions of dollars.
I'm sure you can turn off eyecandy if you want to use your 386.
It's not about avoiding bloat. It's about avoiding instability. Everytime some punk decides to add his favorite glittery bit, he necessarily must touch the mainline code. Someone who is thinking techdemo, experiment, or "research" isn't in the state of mental discipline required to produce robust, stable code that handles the corner cases. Thus when ten thousand morons step in with their personal handful of shiny beads and bits of glass, the overall stability goes down, even when you turn it all off.
One interesting application for this technology, for example, would be resolution-independant desktops. Imagine a deskop of 1024x768 but running under a resolution of 1600x1200, for example.
Yer an idiot. Stretching, or compressing, your desktop to display at another resolution isn't resolution-independance. What you are describing already happens in the hardware controller on devices that have a native resolution (LCDs and other fixed grid display devices).
If he distributed enough it becomes criminal copyright. On the other hand, it would be very hard for a prosecutor to prove a case without Apple being supportive. Generally if you don't want to take part in a case against someone who committed a crime against you, they won't be prosecuted.
This is a settlement. Perhaps that was your point, but this shouldn't get into any public record beyond the statements he has already made. It's certainly not going into a court record as a judgement.
Still, I'll give this a try:) I'm a sucker for stuff like this.
You LS400, just like my LS500, doesn't have the necessary hardware support. It'll do it, but in software which'll be like hammering nails through your pecker. Quite painful.
This isn't shifting shit to a bucket. All this is doing is using the 3D and compositing features of modern video cards to making things shiny. In fact it'll use more CPU than you were using before because it's still doing everything it did, plus managing wobbly windows.
This is stupid.
Tech demo my ass. It's like the genius guys who designed tables with dinnerware built in... "See that depression right there? That's for soup." Stupid.
Now before the infantile moderators jump on the flamebait button, stop and think about it for ten seconds. We want computers that don't suck, not computers that are glittery.
I would expect a high level manager to be aware of notable issues. Deleting the contents of someone's hard drive is a pretty fundamental issue.
If the problem is as another poster stated (ie. installed to c:\ instead of a subdirectory) then their uninstallation process of just deleting the entire install directory, is plainly stupid and the developer who implemented it was just a complete, lazy, incompetent fool.
Why is there all this discussion that merely pays lip services to a very fundamental bug? In the end wank-limo says "who's itch is being scratched." What kind of attitude is that? Not deleting everything from someone's hard drive is hardly scratching an itch. Having a series of steps that people can do with your software that results in a complete loss of data, and one of those steps doesn't involve a dialog that says "This is going to delete all your shit." That's a major bug, even if it only affects less than a thousandth of a percent of your customer base.
Problems like that are the true test of integrity in open source software. Having the organizational character to step up and warn people that uninstalling/installing your app can totally delete everything on their drive is noble. Being blase' about it is just bullshit. If your organization wants credibility then they have to take responsibility for their screwups, even if they do give away their product for free.
Absolutely nowhere in my post did I refer to KDE or Gnome. I was referring to the pedantic losers who feel an uncontrollable urge to get oral giardia and start spewing "Linux is a kernel!" "Linux is a kernel!" anytime anyone actually users the phrase outside of that context. To the rest of the computing world, Linux is more than just a kernel.
Oh, and it's not GNU/Linux, it's just Linux. Get over it. Nobody who was involved in putting together the original linux distros ever looked at Dick Stallman's lunatic screed when assembling the components of their systems. They copied Unix, just like the big Dick did. Only they were smart enough not to have such a hard on for Lisp that they envisioned a world where you only needed a keyboard with two symbols, open- and close-parenthesis. Besides GNU isn't even a has been, it is a never was.
Finally I wasn't talking about your hairy man boobs. So in the future you might want to strike that qualifier of "some boobie experience".
Slashdot Mirror
Creditors extended credit under the old law and consumers accepted credit under the old law. Therefore that should be the obligation without the new changes. The new changes should only apply to new debts.
You've never worked in an enterprise enviroment have you? Tar-ing files that are in use just doesn't work. You get inconsistent data. Come back when you've had some real work experience or at least get a little cleverer than 'tar'.
Obviously a surprising number of DVDs in your collection happen to be **** PORN **** (It isn't a large number, but it is a non-zero number, say a dozen or so out of a hundred.)
The Earth will be in the same place in the sky, the Sun will be rising and setting at a slow rate.
Eg. if this were a bridge over a canyon you can observe that cars are able to drive over the bridge and it doesn't collapse. You can then create a new bridge that is an exact duplicate of the current bridge. Or you can create another bridge that also doesn't collapes when cars drive over it.
You all bitch and moan about corporations collecting your private information. Now why the fuck would you be voluntarily sending them your DNA? Putzes.
No, I think the prime example of sensationalism is when the FSF says that "if you don't use the GPL the evil corporations can take your code and make it non-free."
Here's a business model:
1) Spend money, time and effort to create something.
2) Release it independantly on the net, through your website. Don't include DRM because that's going to offend some anti-DRM punks who'll then promptly go on some kind of crusade to fuck you over.
3) Watch as less than 1% of the people who listen to your music give you any money.
4) Declare bankruptcy (better hurry, cause it's getting harder.)
5) Get a real job producing information that is more difficult to reproduce (hamburgers, frenchfries, cars, hinges, etc.)
6) Die bitter because nobody wants to pay you to do anything you actually want to do.
How many indians do you see walking around? How many cowboys? Looks like there might be a correlation....
The moderators on this site are complete morons, or perhaps they are like the editors and just don't actually read the site. But the fact is, it's a recurring theme here that digital copies don't deprive anyone of anything.
All of you ranting is based on the fact that you just don't get it. You have no idea of what the problem is.
I'll spell it out for you. A developer choosing to release software under an unmodified GPL v2 license effectively gives the FSF an unrestricted, perpetual right to sublicense in any fashion the FSF desires. At a simple level, there's no problem, developers trusted the FSF. Then the FSF came up with the GFDL, which instead of guaranteeing freedom, guarantees that you will join their cause and propagate their message regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
Wrong. The clause doesn't say "this license and any future addendums that may be necessary to tweak the spirit of this license." It says "this license, or any future version." It's a wholesale swap of licenses. Not a merge.
No, the "or any later version" clause basically says, you can use this license or any license that the FSF chooses to release and call GPL v{n+1}. That v{n+1} license could be:
And then I could come along, being a complete and total asshole who wants nothing more than to fuck you over and shit all over your belief system, and choose to use v{n+1} of the license, take your code, slap it into a nice plastic box and stick a label on it: AHA's Goat Fuckingly Great Program, and sell it and make millions of dollars.
It is a blank check.
If he distributed enough it becomes criminal copyright. On the other hand, it would be very hard for a prosecutor to prove a case without Apple being supportive. Generally if you don't want to take part in a case against someone who committed a crime against you, they won't be prosecuted.
This is a settlement. Perhaps that was your point, but this shouldn't get into any public record beyond the statements he has already made. It's certainly not going into a court record as a judgement.
You should submit that to this website called slashdot. I think they're interested in that kind of thing.
This is stupid.
Tech demo my ass. It's like the genius guys who designed tables with dinnerware built in... "See that depression right there? That's for soup." Stupid.
Now before the infantile moderators jump on the flamebait button, stop and think about it for ten seconds. We want computers that don't suck, not computers that are glittery.
If the problem is as another poster stated (ie. installed to c:\ instead of a subdirectory) then their uninstallation process of just deleting the entire install directory, is plainly stupid and the developer who implemented it was just a complete, lazy, incompetent fool.
Problems like that are the true test of integrity in open source software. Having the organizational character to step up and warn people that uninstalling/installing your app can totally delete everything on their drive is noble. Being blase' about it is just bullshit. If your organization wants credibility then they have to take responsibility for their screwups, even if they do give away their product for free.
Oh, and it's not GNU/Linux, it's just Linux. Get over it. Nobody who was involved in putting together the original linux distros ever looked at Dick Stallman's lunatic screed when assembling the components of their systems. They copied Unix, just like the big Dick did. Only they were smart enough not to have such a hard on for Lisp that they envisioned a world where you only needed a keyboard with two symbols, open- and close-parenthesis. Besides GNU isn't even a has been, it is a never was.
Finally I wasn't talking about your hairy man boobs. So in the future you might want to strike that qualifier of "some boobie experience".