"In addition, it will allow them to take GPLed software like the Linux kernel and make it de facto proprietary... simply because the hardware will not "trust" the binary unless it is signed by Dell/Intel/IBM etc etc. So your GPL source is worthless in that world -- you can't modify it... hell, you can't even recompile it yourself without modification, because the result won't work as it did."
And now we see why v3 of the GPL has provisions to prevent this.
Not as such - however, if my mind isn't completely aardvark, the way adblock works normally is that it doesn't even try to access anything on its block list, so the advert isn't downloaded, let alone displayed. Which means it's probably not been counted as looked at. *shrugs*
From work I've done myself, including work from raw data, I've reached my own conclusions on this issue. Yet even then I know that they might be wrong.
(I personally feel that there's an overwhelming amount of evidence in one direction, but that means little if I'm completely misinterpreting it.)
An important fact to remember, however, is that NOBODY has lost out in the grandparent's case. If you do not steal a physical product, but instead merely make a copy of it at no cost to the producer, and if you originally had no intention of buying it, then nobody has actually lost out ANYWHERE along the line.
(Of course, ORIGINAL intention here, for this to hold, has to be if it was not possible to copy it illegally. Nor is the above scenario legal in most jurisdictions, etc etc.)
Example #1: My consultancy/independent research methods lecturer.
A friend and I are doing a project on music sharing, and commonly held views/ideas about it (amongst the student population). When discussing it with her, I had to point out that it's not all illegal.
(As an entirely irrelevant aside, if anyone knows of previous research into filesharing and music sharing, or anything remotely relevant, arguing from ANY viewpoint, feel free to throw it at me...)
....except that the rules of wikipedia state that original research - that is, information directly from the source - is not permitted. Editing your own article with information that cannot be referenced is therefore forbidden.
There wouldn't be anything stopping them selling OO.o, or selling support for it (which is, as you said, WHY people buy it - the support) under the GPL or LGPL. There is no reason here for them not to sell it. The GPL does NOT prevent selling your product, contrary to most people's interpretations of it.
There is nothing stopping you selling and supporting a GPL'd (or similar) product. NOTHING AT ALL. Contrary to many people's opinions, you are perfectly allowed to sell it - in fact, you don't HAVE to provide the source to anyone who hasn't got the binaries. However, someone who has bought it can then distribute it themselves. But since the main reason anyone would buy StarOffice is the support of the big-name company BEHIND it, a free version of the same product being available wouldn't be a problem at all.
My MDR-V100 headphones do a reasonable job. However, I find them uncomfortable after a while, and they always seem a bit too bassy. And there's the whole Sony=evil thing. (I didn't choose these; they were bought for me.)
Even at very low volume levels, however, they block out almost all external sound. Which could be inappropriate in this setting.
Comfort over a long period is vital. I own a set of Sony MDR-V300 'phones (bought for me; I didn't choose them), and I find them uncomfortable fter a while. They squash my ears too much.
In comparison, the Sennheiser phones we use at the gigs I help run are much more comfortable for long periods.
The stupidest thing about that CD is that any intelligent species will have an awful time trying to work out how to read it - if they even recognise it as a data source. Even more than just something written in plain text (since they have to read the CD, and THEN decipher the contents too)
Slashdot Mirror
It IS a limerick.
There once was a user that whined
his existing OS was so blind
he'd do better to pirate
an OS that ran great
but found his hardware declined.
Naturally, it requires a slightly modified way of pronouncing pirate and/or great.
"In addition, it will allow them to take GPLed software like the Linux kernel and make it de facto proprietary... simply because the hardware will not "trust" the binary unless it is signed by Dell/Intel/IBM etc etc. So your GPL source is worthless in that world -- you can't modify it... hell, you can't even recompile it yourself without modification, because the result won't work as it did."
And now we see why v3 of the GPL has provisions to prevent this.
I prefered HOMM 2 to any of the others in many ways. You should try it sometime.
Not as such - however, if my mind isn't completely aardvark, the way adblock works normally is that it doesn't even try to access anything on its block list, so the advert isn't downloaded, let alone displayed. Which means it's probably not been counted as looked at. *shrugs*
Only applies to pay-per-view ads, of course.
Nah, you can do better than boycott.
If you use their search, you cost them a little in bandwidth and server usage etc. If you block all their ads, you don't earn them anything in return.
Problem is, we then end up with Apple being in charge of the music industry. And I can't say as I'd like that any more.
The existence of this program doesn't force anyone to use it. It's simply giving them the OPTION to do so.
From work I've done myself, including work from raw data, I've reached my own conclusions on this issue. Yet even then I know that they might be wrong.
(I personally feel that there's an overwhelming amount of evidence in one direction, but that means little if I'm completely misinterpreting it.)
An important fact to remember, however, is that NOBODY has lost out in the grandparent's case. If you do not steal a physical product, but instead merely make a copy of it at no cost to the producer, and if you originally had no intention of buying it, then nobody has actually lost out ANYWHERE along the line.
(Of course, ORIGINAL intention here, for this to hold, has to be if it was not possible to copy it illegally. Nor is the above scenario legal in most jurisdictions, etc etc.)
Example #1: My consultancy/independent research methods lecturer.
A friend and I are doing a project on music sharing, and commonly held views/ideas about it (amongst the student population). When discussing it with her, I had to point out that it's not all illegal.
(As an entirely irrelevant aside, if anyone knows of previous research into filesharing and music sharing, or anything remotely relevant, arguing from ANY viewpoint, feel free to throw it at me...)
Hmmm, that's exactly what I thought. Took me about five re-reads to work it out, too.
("+1, Funny Typo" for this topic, anyone?)
The original Olympics in ancient Greece had a torch, too, according to most histories.
Hence, it was only reintroduced in Berlin.
The original comment said that the AIX machine wasn't performing well enough.
It was presumably cheaper and easier to replace it with ten commodity boxes with linux than replace it with a more powerful unix machine.
....except that the rules of wikipedia state that original research - that is, information directly from the source - is not permitted. Editing your own article with information that cannot be referenced is therefore forbidden.
There already are forks. Mostly for porting, I believe, but I know several exist.
Just don't ask me to remember their names...
There wouldn't be anything stopping them selling OO.o, or selling support for it (which is, as you said, WHY people buy it - the support) under the GPL or LGPL. There is no reason here for them not to sell it. The GPL does NOT prevent selling your product, contrary to most people's interpretations of it.
(In other words, the parent is right.)
There is nothing stopping you selling and supporting a GPL'd (or similar) product. NOTHING AT ALL. Contrary to many people's opinions, you are perfectly allowed to sell it - in fact, you don't HAVE to provide the source to anyone who hasn't got the binaries. However, someone who has bought it can then distribute it themselves. But since the main reason anyone would buy StarOffice is the support of the big-name company BEHIND it, a free version of the same product being available wouldn't be a problem at all.
My MDR-V100 headphones do a reasonable job. However, I find them uncomfortable after a while, and they always seem a bit too bassy. And there's the whole Sony=evil thing. (I didn't choose these; they were bought for me.)
Even at very low volume levels, however, they block out almost all external sound. Which could be inappropriate in this setting.
That's the major problem with open-backed headphones - you can hear the environment around you, but the sound from the 'phones can also escape.
Comfort over a long period is vital. I own a set of Sony MDR-V300 'phones (bought for me; I didn't choose them), and I find them uncomfortable fter a while. They squash my ears too much.
In comparison, the Sennheiser phones we use at the gigs I help run are much more comfortable for long periods.
The stupidest thing about that CD is that any intelligent species will have an awful time trying to work out how to read it - if they even recognise it as a data source. Even more than just something written in plain text (since they have to read the CD, and THEN decipher the contents too)
Except the wasp, FTFA, doesn't lay the eggs inside. It lays an egg outside, and the lava eats its way into the roach.
Hmmm... The guy's seed is "layed" only somewhat inside, and works its way further in?
Almost works...
Yes, as you've realised, someone is several years ahead of you and has been having a lot of fun laughing at the world all this time...
And unfortunately, it wasn't me.
Just to state the obvious, then:
You have one weird toilet.
You can do that anyway. Just wait for a long traveling period, set the autopilot, and go wash.