In addition to what other responders have said, the entire life of the author (not to mention so many years beyond it) is arguably "unlimited" -- at least, I find it hard to believe that whoever wrote "limited Times" would have thought that the rest of the author's life could somehow fit into its definition...
Either way, when the police look at your computer and find no traces of illegal activity, they'll let you go, just like they did with the guy in the story.
I wish I had your confidence that the police are always good enough to do that. It must be quite pleasant to be able to ignore all the news reports of police misconduct...
Why should I pay more for what any reasonable person ought to be able to expect? If I pay for something, it's my right to expect a functional and safe product in return. Hell, Free/Open Source software gives me that for free, and yet some profit-making enterprise can't afford to do it?
And it doesn't cost the vendor anything more to release the source of an outdated piece of software -- they don't have to use an open source license, just allow me to fix what I paid for.
No; I know of no industry that works like that other than software. First, if a product is defective, I can return it and get it refunded or replaced. Beyond the warranty period, I still have the ability to alter it myself. Not so with software -- I can't return an opened package, even if the program doesn't work, and the EULA prevents me from making ANY modifications.
Also, 10 years from now if it is discovered that my model of car has a "security risk", i.e. it explodes at random without warning, the manufacturer can still be held responsible. In this case, the software companies are trying to ditch any responsibility for their product, and require that the user pay them again for a newer version if they want their problem fixed.
What's really stupid is your suggestion that the consumer is obligated to deal with a defective product.
If someone has paid for the software, the vendor should be obligated to fix malfunctions and security risks for as long as the software is in use, or until they release the source. If you pay for something, you have the right to expect it to work; if you're not given the means to correct issues with it, you have the right to expect that the company who took your money corrects those issues.
I love this: "Why the pulses affect mood is still unclear."
So apparently some scientist thought it would be fun to try electrocuting someone's brain, not knowing what would result of it. I know some people would be outraged at the idea, but it sorta makes me want to become a neuroscientist if I get to play around like that...
The fact that the city had the pay stubs taken down doesn't worry me -- they probably shouldn't be allowed to be publicly accessible. The censorship concern of this to me is: from the article it sounds like the city's first act in finding something it didn't like online was going straight to the ISP to remove it, rather than trying to contact the person who posted the information first. It sets a bad trend -- removing from the individuals rights as well as responsibilities in what they publish...
Who knows, though, what the article might be leaving out...
I wouldn't make the general statement that the "GPLv3 does hurt," but that it hurts in some specific cases. This has always been the case: there is no "one license fits all" claim going on here. Some things are better off with GPLv2 or BSD, heck even the GNU project came up with LGPL and uses yet other licenses on certain pieces of software. Yet despite these cases, GPLv3 is still probably a good fit for many (perhaps most) open source developers out there...
Too true... This will probably have no effect on my life whatsoever, but I deal with posts like this specifically because I don't come to slashdot for general interest stuff. If I wanted something that was supposedly of great interest to everybody, I'd hit up Google news or Yahoo! (despite the fact that even they are chock-full of useless crap). Since I want something a little more tech-oriented, I come to Slashdot and happily sift through to find the few things that really interest me.
I feel inclined to mention this because hopefully those few that take an interest in this post won't turn around and tag something useful to me with "whocares", etc...
The problem is, I trust user-ranking systems like Digg even less: Google may be affected by spammers, but user-ranking systems are affected by fads and things like Britney Spears flashing everyone while getting out of her car. Imagine if I want a legitimate bio on a person, or information on a company or country -- how will I ever find it if they're currently the subject of a controversial/popular news item?
Wouldn't the appropriate way for the company to compete better be to actually ship a product? Seriously, I haven't used a PDA for quite a while, 'cuz I ain't touching Windows, and Palm (my former favorite) hasn't exactly been reliable lately...
It's not intended to be an argument for it, just a statement of reality... You can't rely on someone else (including the government) to protect your privacy, whether or not they say they will. In fact, I'll even credit Bush for honesty in this case, because historically, any president has been willing to lay claim to whatever powers they've wanted after having declared a national emergency.
Ethically speaking, it may be wrong, but practically speaking it could turn out to be a great thing. This way people aren't mislead into a false sense of security...
Not that I approve of the idea (I don't -- I don't think it's in the spirit of the search and seizure amendment), but really people! If you don't want the government's prying eye's on your correspondence, why are you having the government deliver it for you anyway? There are other methods of delivering a message for those who seriously need the privacy...
Seems like a lame argument to me. If you use the "or later" language, there's really no way further restrictions can be added to your program -- Say the GPL v3 adds a boatload of new restrictions; users still have the option to distribute the software under v2. The worst they could do is rewrite it to say "this software is under the public domain," perhaps as a developer I wouldn't like it, but I've judged the risk of that to be smaller than the benefits that come from letting the license be updated from time to time. And if one wants control over his code, so they have these "rights" and "bargaining power," why the hell is he using someone else's license in the first place?
"I just can't stand the duplicates, unjust bias, and inability for the site to 'grow up.'"
So, if you're tired of immaturity and bias, are you going to stop using the internet altogether? How about ditching television as well? Are you going to lock yourself in your house -- even then you can't get away from yourself and your not too-well thought out positions (not a real mark of maturity there).
You're going to have to deal with people who haven't decided to "grow up" if you want to live in this world. If you want to avoid a website over it, fine, but posting a rant before you leave is just a sign that you're committing the same sin...
iPod is great once you get rid of Apple's firmware. When you replace it with something like Rockbox and can play your Ogg Vorbis files (as well as Doom!), you've got a nifty gadget there.
iTunes and DRM aren't any reason to avoid iPod -- nobody's making you use them...
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if it should be trusted, it is in any case. I've even seen Wikipedia use Alexa rankings as a basis for whether a website is notable enough for its own article...
But I guess statistics have always been used to allow people to fool around with fantasy and avoid facing reality.
I am (and I suspect most other Americans are) pretty ignorant of modern day socio-political Europe. News media in the United States is pretty, well, American, and the mentions of European nations usually involve stories that affect Americans. So we hear about the "European Union" in negotiations with the US over something or other, or about the euro vs. the dollar in economic news, and that's our exposure to present-day Europe.
I wouldn't say we're totally clueless... in the sense of geography, I can point out any European country on a map. I know some world history, and thus at least a skeletal outline of the history of the larger European nations. "Ethnocentric" isn't even quite the right word for it -- I read German literature and enjoy Italian opera. It's just that a lot of us don't have a clue about modern Europe unless we've traveled that way.
Part of it comes from being across an ocean, I guess. We let the international businessmen and politicians work out business and political deals, and the general populous gets to remain blissfully ignorant of the details. Imagination makes up for the lack of information, and thus you get the prejudices I explained. The only way I know how things actually work over across the Atlantic is via the occasional online discussion. So perhaps the internet is doing more than just rotting my brains.
Hope you find this somewhat informative... I definitely learned a thing or two between you and the couple of others who responded to my post...
"And they're not joined up into a nationwide surveillance network. In fact, the charming British tradition of complete and utter incompetence means that aggravated assault is usually missed because the operators are too busy zooming in on some fit blondes' ti^H^H assets.:)"
Figures.:)
Well, at least let me defend my country on the basis of consistency. Without commenting on whether it's right or wrong, allow me to mention that they often ask me to provide that sort of information when I enter the U.S., and I'm a citizen of said country! I do find it mildly inconvenient, and suspect that the customs officers are often being a little more nosy than required, but it hasn't gotten to a degree where I've been seriously upset over it. I guess my point is that we're not singling foreigners out for harrassment here, heck, we even harrass ourselves!
The reason for the tone of my post is that to someone (like me) whose experience with international travel involves only the American continent, Britain (or France, etc.) seems pretty representative of Europe. And with the continent being generalized in the news (and somewhat in their own government, i.e. "European Union"), we don't always think of the countries as being entirely independent. Thus my manner of statement, and thus my question at the end as to my accuracy in wondering whether the rest of Europe observes its populous with as diligently as britain. If that is the case, then commending Europe for protecting privacy is indeed quite silly.
I figured that enough Europeans read slashdot that one might respond explaining that I was either correct or incorrect. I assume your response means that most European nations do not monitor their citizens in public to the degree that Britain does, which is what the "Am I wrong?" question was asking about. Thanks for clearing that up...
Why wouldn't they? I thought it was clear in my post that I don't know. Still, you've managed to leave my question unanswered in an attempt to insult me, so what should I be convinced of again? I'm just dying to listen to your opinion now!
Slashdot Mirror
In addition to what other responders have said, the entire life of the author (not to mention so many years beyond it) is arguably "unlimited" -- at least, I find it hard to believe that whoever wrote "limited Times" would have thought that the rest of the author's life could somehow fit into its definition...
This. In fact, where I work, IT is the only department where we don't have that disclaimer in our email signatures.
Either way, when the police look at your computer and find no traces of illegal activity, they'll let you go, just like they did with the guy in the story.
I wish I had your confidence that the police are always good enough to do that. It must be quite pleasant to be able to ignore all the news reports of police misconduct...
Why should I pay more for what any reasonable person ought to be able to expect? If I pay for something, it's my right to expect a functional and safe product in return. Hell, Free/Open Source software gives me that for free, and yet some profit-making enterprise can't afford to do it?
And it doesn't cost the vendor anything more to release the source of an outdated piece of software -- they don't have to use an open source license, just allow me to fix what I paid for.
No; I know of no industry that works like that other than software. First, if a product is defective, I can return it and get it refunded or replaced. Beyond the warranty period, I still have the ability to alter it myself. Not so with software -- I can't return an opened package, even if the program doesn't work, and the EULA prevents me from making ANY modifications. Also, 10 years from now if it is discovered that my model of car has a "security risk", i.e. it explodes at random without warning, the manufacturer can still be held responsible. In this case, the software companies are trying to ditch any responsibility for their product, and require that the user pay them again for a newer version if they want their problem fixed. What's really stupid is your suggestion that the consumer is obligated to deal with a defective product.
If someone has paid for the software, the vendor should be obligated to fix malfunctions and security risks for as long as the software is in use, or until they release the source. If you pay for something, you have the right to expect it to work; if you're not given the means to correct issues with it, you have the right to expect that the company who took your money corrects those issues.
I love this: "Why the pulses affect mood is still unclear."
So apparently some scientist thought it would be fun to try electrocuting someone's brain, not knowing what would result of it. I know some people would be outraged at the idea, but it sorta makes me want to become a neuroscientist if I get to play around like that...
The fact that the city had the pay stubs taken down doesn't worry me -- they probably shouldn't be allowed to be publicly accessible. The censorship concern of this to me is: from the article it sounds like the city's first act in finding something it didn't like online was going straight to the ISP to remove it, rather than trying to contact the person who posted the information first. It sets a bad trend -- removing from the individuals rights as well as responsibilities in what they publish...
Who knows, though, what the article might be leaving out...
I wouldn't make the general statement that the "GPLv3 does hurt," but that it hurts in some specific cases. This has always been the case: there is no "one license fits all" claim going on here. Some things are better off with GPLv2 or BSD, heck even the GNU project came up with LGPL and uses yet other licenses on certain pieces of software. Yet despite these cases, GPLv3 is still probably a good fit for many (perhaps most) open source developers out there...
Too true... This will probably have no effect on my life whatsoever, but I deal with posts like this specifically because I don't come to slashdot for general interest stuff. If I wanted something that was supposedly of great interest to everybody, I'd hit up Google news or Yahoo! (despite the fact that even they are chock-full of useless crap). Since I want something a little more tech-oriented, I come to Slashdot and happily sift through to find the few things that really interest me.
I feel inclined to mention this because hopefully those few that take an interest in this post won't turn around and tag something useful to me with "whocares", etc...
The problem is, I trust user-ranking systems like Digg even less: Google may be affected by spammers, but user-ranking systems are affected by fads and things like Britney Spears flashing everyone while getting out of her car. Imagine if I want a legitimate bio on a person, or information on a company or country -- how will I ever find it if they're currently the subject of a controversial/popular news item?
"30% of business have no intention of moving to Vista, ever."
And we all know that the "ever" part means "at least not for another few months."
According to his blog entry, he's hoping that either draft 3 will become GPLv3 or at least with very little modification.
Wouldn't the appropriate way for the company to compete better be to actually ship a product? Seriously, I haven't used a PDA for quite a while, 'cuz I ain't touching Windows, and Palm (my former favorite) hasn't exactly been reliable lately...
It's not intended to be an argument for it, just a statement of reality... You can't rely on someone else (including the government) to protect your privacy, whether or not they say they will. In fact, I'll even credit Bush for honesty in this case, because historically, any president has been willing to lay claim to whatever powers they've wanted after having declared a national emergency.
Ethically speaking, it may be wrong, but practically speaking it could turn out to be a great thing. This way people aren't mislead into a false sense of security...
Not that I approve of the idea (I don't -- I don't think it's in the spirit of the search and seizure amendment), but really people! If you don't want the government's prying eye's on your correspondence, why are you having the government deliver it for you anyway? There are other methods of delivering a message for those who seriously need the privacy...
Seems like a lame argument to me. If you use the "or later" language, there's really no way further restrictions can be added to your program -- Say the GPL v3 adds a boatload of new restrictions; users still have the option to distribute the software under v2. The worst they could do is rewrite it to say "this software is under the public domain," perhaps as a developer I wouldn't like it, but I've judged the risk of that to be smaller than the benefits that come from letting the license be updated from time to time. And if one wants control over his code, so they have these "rights" and "bargaining power," why the hell is he using someone else's license in the first place?
They wanted to get around that ugly part of the GPL that says "and when GPL v3 comes out, this software must be distributed according to its terms."
Unfortunately, I can't quite find it anywhere in the license, though everyone keeps complaining about it...
"I just can't stand the duplicates, unjust bias, and inability for the site to 'grow up.'"
So, if you're tired of immaturity and bias, are you going to stop using the internet altogether? How about ditching television as well? Are you going to lock yourself in your house -- even then you can't get away from yourself and your not too-well thought out positions (not a real mark of maturity there).
You're going to have to deal with people who haven't decided to "grow up" if you want to live in this world. If you want to avoid a website over it, fine, but posting a rant before you leave is just a sign that you're committing the same sin...
iPod is great once you get rid of Apple's firmware. When you replace it with something like Rockbox and can play your Ogg Vorbis files (as well as Doom!), you've got a nifty gadget there.
iTunes and DRM aren't any reason to avoid iPod -- nobody's making you use them...
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if it should be trusted, it is in any case. I've even seen Wikipedia use Alexa rankings as a basis for whether a website is notable enough for its own article...
But I guess statistics have always been used to allow people to fool around with fantasy and avoid facing reality.
I am (and I suspect most other Americans are) pretty ignorant of modern day socio-political Europe. News media in the United States is pretty, well, American, and the mentions of European nations usually involve stories that affect Americans. So we hear about the "European Union" in negotiations with the US over something or other, or about the euro vs. the dollar in economic news, and that's our exposure to present-day Europe.
I wouldn't say we're totally clueless... in the sense of geography, I can point out any European country on a map. I know some world history, and thus at least a skeletal outline of the history of the larger European nations. "Ethnocentric" isn't even quite the right word for it -- I read German literature and enjoy Italian opera. It's just that a lot of us don't have a clue about modern Europe unless we've traveled that way.
Part of it comes from being across an ocean, I guess. We let the international businessmen and politicians work out business and political deals, and the general populous gets to remain blissfully ignorant of the details. Imagination makes up for the lack of information, and thus you get the prejudices I explained. The only way I know how things actually work over across the Atlantic is via the occasional online discussion. So perhaps the internet is doing more than just rotting my brains.
Hope you find this somewhat informative... I definitely learned a thing or two between you and the couple of others who responded to my post...
"And they're not joined up into a nationwide surveillance network. In fact, the charming British tradition of complete and utter incompetence means that aggravated assault is usually missed because the operators are too busy zooming in on some fit blondes' ti^H^H assets. :)"
:)
Figures.
Well, at least let me defend my country on the basis of consistency. Without commenting on whether it's right or wrong, allow me to mention that they often ask me to provide that sort of information when I enter the U.S., and I'm a citizen of said country! I do find it mildly inconvenient, and suspect that the customs officers are often being a little more nosy than required, but it hasn't gotten to a degree where I've been seriously upset over it. I guess my point is that we're not singling foreigners out for harrassment here, heck, we even harrass ourselves!
The reason for the tone of my post is that to someone (like me) whose experience with international travel involves only the American continent, Britain (or France, etc.) seems pretty representative of Europe. And with the continent being generalized in the news (and somewhat in their own government, i.e. "European Union"), we don't always think of the countries as being entirely independent. Thus my manner of statement, and thus my question at the end as to my accuracy in wondering whether the rest of Europe observes its populous with as diligently as britain. If that is the case, then commending Europe for protecting privacy is indeed quite silly.
I figured that enough Europeans read slashdot that one might respond explaining that I was either correct or incorrect. I assume your response means that most European nations do not monitor their citizens in public to the degree that Britain does, which is what the "Am I wrong?" question was asking about. Thanks for clearing that up...
Why wouldn't they? I thought it was clear in my post that I don't know. Still, you've managed to leave my question unanswered in an attempt to insult me, so what should I be convinced of again? I'm just dying to listen to your opinion now!