If you grant a person a license to use your work, you formerly had a right to legal recourse if they used your work according to the terms dictated in the license, and now you don't.
You don't understand the GPL at all. It is control of the author's rights, protected by copyright, that allows the author to control how others use his work.
No, I think you don't understand copyright. The GPL doesn't give you rights, it waives rights you already have in a very explicit manner - essentially a license. Hence the "L".
Read that sentence again. It doesn't claim that the GPL gives you rights. It claims that copyright does, and that the control given by copyright allows the author to dictate the terms upon which licensees may use the work. You aren't saying different things at all here.
Haha! Because women are gold-diggers rather than people with diverse and complex attractions and that's why you they sleep with other, richer men and not you! Classic!...Wait, they also find penniless badasses attractive? Brb, reevaluating.
404 is an HTTP error, and you'll get it when you reach a server, but request from it a document it doesn't have. If the DNS doesn't resolve, you won't even get that far:(
Passive entertainment isn't going to be entirely supplanted by active entertainment. Sure, as it gets more sophisticated it will become more compelling to more people, but the human desire to sit down and let someone else do all the work for your enjoyment is not going away.
I was going to be the first to comment but I'm more than 500 meters away from my phone company's nearest DSLAM, so I have to wait for them to build another one halfway in between.
Yes. After all, I expect to have an equal say in how other people's tax money is spent, even if their income (and therefore their tax contribution) is far greater than mine.
Tell me, do you think I should only get to vote with 1/100th the weight of someone who pays 100 times as many taxes as I do?
I don't know why people feel the need to pretend to be so selfless.
This presumes an awful lot. Is it so unthinkable that other Americans might actually value fairness above their own self-interest, and might not consider the privilege of citizenship to be legitimately fair?
Because I have a special legal status which, thanks to the accident of birth, entitles ME to be recognized as a real person with interests and needs, but not THAT GUY OVER THERE. If we include him in the decision-making process then the resulting decisions might not privilege me so uniquely! Pandemonium!
Your analogy is flawless! Expanding the vote to include another group of people who would only constitute a small minority of voters at large, and who could only ever affect the outcome in concert with a much larger group of people who are already empowered to vote, is exactly like one person dictating all of someone else's spending decisisons! I see it all so clearly now! Is there some sort of book series or a correspondence class I can take in order to have razor-sharp metaphorical reasoning skills like yours?
Usually when people draw the distinction between rights and entitlements, they're really complaining about paying taxes for stuff other people use. But lots of rights are entitlements, if you read them as not being vapid.
For instance, the right to private property. What is that right, if it is not entitlement to the services of an enforcement and justice system which serves that right? Such a system is necessarily expensive, so if people who are unable to pay for that system have private property rights too, then in what sense isn't their right an entitlement?
I'm certain there are statistical techniques that can be used to tie separate unique, "unrelated" sessions back together when they come from the same user. Some websites expose their account usernames to Google, which can provide near-sure matches.
Certain users habitually use Google to get to their favourite sites because it's literally quicker than typing a URL, and many of those probably use the same abbreviations for those sites each time. My ex-girlfriend used to get to Facebook by typing "face" into Google and clicking "I'm feeling lucky." I bet combining 4 or 5 separate browsing idiosyncrasies like that is enough to uniquely identify many users.
The worst part is, they're right. As it turns out, the exact same kinds of privacy we want for the right reasons, the bad guys want for the wrong reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
If you grant a person a license to use your work, you formerly had a right to legal recourse if they used your work according to the terms dictated in the license, and now you don't.
If you grant a right to someone else that was previously yours exclusively, you are waiving your right to exclusivity.
God, why do these all become such semantic games?
You don't understand the GPL at all. It is control of the author's rights, protected by copyright, that allows the author to control how others use his work.
No, I think you don't understand copyright. The GPL doesn't give you rights, it waives rights you already have in a very explicit manner - essentially a license. Hence the "L".
Read that sentence again. It doesn't claim that the GPL gives you rights. It claims that copyright does, and that the control given by copyright allows the author to dictate the terms upon which licensees may use the work. You aren't saying different things at all here.
Haha! Because women are gold-diggers rather than people with diverse and complex attractions and that's why you they sleep with other, richer men and not you! Classic! ...Wait, they also find penniless badasses attractive? Brb, reevaluating.
Cool story bro
404 is an HTTP error, and you'll get it when you reach a server, but request from it a document it doesn't have. :(
If the DNS doesn't resolve, you won't even get that far
Is that what Google Wave was for?
Who knew!
Not to worry. If it proves to be a useful and popular feature, Diaspora will undoubtedly implement it too, eventually.
Passive entertainment isn't going to be entirely supplanted by active entertainment. Sure, as it gets more sophisticated it will become more compelling to more people, but the human desire to sit down and let someone else do all the work for your enjoyment is not going away.
(come on make a double entendre I want you to)
I was going to be the first to comment but I'm more than 500 meters away from my phone company's nearest DSLAM, so I have to wait for them to build another one halfway in between.
Yes. After all, I expect to have an equal say in how other people's tax money is spent, even if their income (and therefore their tax contribution) is far greater than mine.
Tell me, do you think I should only get to vote with 1/100th the weight of someone who pays 100 times as many taxes as I do?
I don't know why people feel the need to pretend to be so selfless.
This presumes an awful lot. Is it so unthinkable that other Americans might actually value fairness above their own self-interest, and might not consider the privilege of citizenship to be legitimately fair?
Because I have a special legal status which, thanks to the accident of birth, entitles ME to be recognized as a real person with interests and needs, but not THAT GUY OVER THERE. If we include him in the decision-making process then the resulting decisions might not privilege me so uniquely! Pandemonium!
Your analogy is flawless! Expanding the vote to include another group of people who would only constitute a small minority of voters at large, and who could only ever affect the outcome in concert with a much larger group of people who are already empowered to vote, is exactly like one person dictating all of someone else's spending decisisons! I see it all so clearly now! Is there some sort of book series or a correspondence class I can take in order to have razor-sharp metaphorical reasoning skills like yours?
:p
Bringing up Windows in a question about viruses? You're right, that takes a huge leap of insight and originality here on Slashdot!
No, but if you have some land, are you entitled to have someone pay a cop to keep people from trespassing on it?
(I swear I'm not baiting at you with these questions, but just expanding on what I think is a popular and weird conception about rights.)
Usually when people draw the distinction between rights and entitlements, they're really complaining about paying taxes for stuff other people use. But lots of rights are entitlements, if you read them as not being vapid.
For instance, the right to private property. What is that right, if it is not entitlement to the services of an enforcement and justice system which serves that right? Such a system is necessarily expensive, so if people who are unable to pay for that system have private property rights too, then in what sense isn't their right an entitlement?
I know this is off-topic, but y'know, there's never a Slashdot OP dedicated to asking someone about their sig, so it's now or never. Mods, take mercy.
Which rights in particular were you thinking of when you wrote your sig? Or, all of 'em?
I'm certain there are statistical techniques that can be used to tie separate unique, "unrelated" sessions back together when they come from the same user. Some websites expose their account usernames to Google, which can provide near-sure matches.
Certain users habitually use Google to get to their favourite sites because it's literally quicker than typing a URL, and many of those probably use the same abbreviations for those sites each time. My ex-girlfriend used to get to Facebook by typing "face" into Google and clicking "I'm feeling lucky." I bet combining 4 or 5 separate browsing idiosyncrasies like that is enough to uniquely identify many users.
You do know what Google's business model is, right?
I agree wholeheartedly.
We already decided as a nation, over 200 years ago.
No we didn't.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=lmXIMZiU8yQC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=latent+ambiguities+lessig&source=bl&ots=wR-XRpD40t&sig=uFZTqE_jsB4FiJ5EKJclyZuaNto&hl=en&ei=AoOqTMnfDYuosQPu2p3aAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=latent%20ambiguities%20lessig&f=false
Don't think that just because you haven't got an account, they haven't got an "account" on you.
The worst part is, they're right. As it turns out, the exact same kinds of privacy we want for the right reasons, the bad guys want for the wrong reasons.