This is because (I'm wearing my flame-retardant suit) the GPL isn't necessary to preserve software freedom anymore; and in its own way is restrictive of those freedoms.
1) It scares off a lot of people and companies who might otherwise use such software. Nobody wants to be caught staring down the barrel of a loaded lawyer because of their choice of software. Whether or not this fear is *realistic* is not relevant - it is a *real* fear.
2) By using a license to force-propagate specific freedoms, we restrict other freedoms - namely the unfettered freedom to do whatever you want with the source.
3) Free software is here. We've won. The strict rules of the GPL aren't necessary because people are willing to create, use, and propagate free software without them.
A lot of newer projects are more concerned with getting their source adopted and in use than with making sure users contribute back. And the best way to get better adoption is to use a license that doesn't scare people (and lawyers).
Thursday about an empirical analysis of existing malicious programs for the Android and iOS platforms shows that Google is losing the mobile security contest badly — every piece of malicious code the two identified was for the company's Android OS, while Apple's iOS remained free of malware,.
Wait, what?
An empirical analysis of existing malicious iOS and Android programs (which the article claims do not exist for iOS) shows that no malicious apps exist for iOS.
Well, yes. I stand behind the publishers and devs here - because this is a completely unregulated free market.
If devs/pubs think that tough console drm and expensive one-time-use DLC are the answer, they should do that.
If they're right, they'll be happy with the results. If they're wrong, sales will tank. Personally I think that they're right. Today, millions of people buy overpriced locked-down games every day.. People have demonstrated that they're willing to put up with all manner of indignities to get their gaming fixes.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they'll find a way to restrict used games sales, and first-sales will plummet. But I'm not holding my breath.
I've been accused of shilling when I said something vaguely anti-GPL; or when I said something vaguely pro-MS. It's not true; but unfortunately folks like Mueller (who I've consistently maintained to be nothing more than a vocal blogger with no qualifications - never suspected he was a shill) fuel the thinking that gets me called a shill when I say something that folks don't want to hear.
There are a lot of people, who like me, have hundreds of good ideas a year. But it takes a lot of money to go from an idea to an actual implementation.
Then I wouldn't say they qualify as good ideas. A good idea requires a negligible investment in time and money to carry out and it is a very safe way of making money. That's a good idea to me, nothing less.
So in other words, get-rich-quick schemes are what you're looking for. Keep on looking, AC. You'll find one that works, one day.
The refrigerator temperature isn't relative to the room though - it's a fixed temp, w/ an internal thermostat (at least in any relatively recent model).
"saving" comments to an optionally shareable folder would be most excellent indeed. I often find that a comment has links or even just ideas that I want to explore when I have more time.
I like it. It works well for me, and avoids constant page loads/back navigation.
That said, I suspect they look at usage patterns - of course a vocal minority will complain because a vocal minority always complains. The question is what the silent majority (and if/. is like any other forum, the vast majority of people read plenty but never post a single comment) do. If the changes had caused readership to actually drop off, they would have revisited them.
Nobody is complaining about the advertisements that are marked as advertisements.
The complaints are about the advertisements masquerading as articles. I don't see a lot (1-2 a day, if that) but it does happen. The question is - are these advertisers paying slashdot (unlikely), paying the folks who pick the articles (possible but still not very likely) or have they simply found a way to abuse the submission process (most likely).
Wasting your time. This is the same dude who - earlier in this discussion - posted such gems as "you're retarded" and "just die" in lieu of logical arguments.
Okay so you block admin queries, great. But most people attempting to hack are not out to destroy your db - they're trying to get data from it. The same kind of data that your applications need, and so can't be reliably blocked via heuristics. Chances are if you're naive enough to think that it will, you've also stored some nice juicy plaintext data in your db, ripe for plucking;)
From your own given link: "in the absence of you voluntarily granting Lewis Cass ISD administration access to you[r] Facebook page, we will assume the worst and act accordingly.".
You're misreading. It doesn't say "administrative", it says "administration" -- which strongly implies that it's referring to a group of people, eg "[the] Lewis Cass ISD administration" who wants "access to you[r] Facebook page".
The administrator asked to view the Facebook account - no request was made for her password. Whether or not this is OK remains up for debate, but having the facts is always preferable...
Facebook has a similar policy yet you manage to just use a fake name. Why not do the same with Google? Too - if you can't be tagged why do you have to spend time untagging? And you do know that Facebook remembers the tags even if you untaggimgng? *they know who you are man!*
My point is that if you have real privacy concerns your only effective option is to not use these services - Facebook is certainly no better than Google.
Slashdot Mirror
This is because (I'm wearing my flame-retardant suit) the GPL isn't necessary to preserve software freedom anymore; and in its own way is restrictive of those freedoms.
1) It scares off a lot of people and companies who might otherwise use such software. Nobody wants to be caught staring down the barrel of a loaded lawyer because of their choice of software. Whether or not this fear is *realistic* is not relevant - it is a *real* fear.
2) By using a license to force-propagate specific freedoms, we restrict other freedoms - namely the unfettered freedom to do whatever you want with the source.
3) Free software is here. We've won. The strict rules of the GPL aren't necessary because people are willing to create, use, and propagate free software without them.
A lot of newer projects are more concerned with getting their source adopted and in use than with making sure users contribute back. And the best way to get better adoption is to use a license that doesn't scare people (and lawyers).
Thursday about an empirical analysis of existing malicious programs for the Android and iOS platforms shows that Google is losing the mobile security contest badly — every piece of malicious code the two identified was for the company's Android OS, while Apple's iOS remained free of malware,.
Wait, what?
An empirical analysis of existing malicious iOS and Android programs (which the article claims do not exist for iOS) shows that no malicious apps exist for iOS.
Begging the question much?
Well, yes. I stand behind the publishers and devs here - because this is a completely unregulated free market.
If devs/pubs think that tough console drm and expensive one-time-use DLC are the answer, they should do that.
If they're right, they'll be happy with the results. If they're wrong, sales will tank.
Personally I think that they're right. Today, millions of people buy overpriced locked-down games every day.. People have demonstrated that they're willing to put up with all manner of indignities to get their gaming fixes.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they'll find a way to restrict used games sales, and first-sales will plummet. But I'm not holding my breath.
you make the wrong point, but a valid argument.
I've been accused of shilling when I said something vaguely anti-GPL; or when I said something vaguely pro-MS. It's not true; but unfortunately folks like Mueller (who I've consistently maintained to be nothing more than a vocal blogger with no qualifications - never suspected he was a shill) fuel the thinking that gets me called a shill when I say something that folks don't want to hear.
You may keep your geek card for another day.
I believe you're looking for the third article on the left
There are a lot of people, who like me, have hundreds of good ideas a year. But it takes a lot of money to go from an idea to an actual implementation.
Then I wouldn't say they qualify as good ideas. A good idea requires a negligible investment in time and money to carry out and it is a very safe way of making money. That's a good idea to me, nothing less.
So in other words, get-rich-quick schemes are what you're looking for. Keep on looking, AC. You'll find one that works, one day.
The refrigerator temperature isn't relative to the room though - it's a fixed temp, w/ an internal thermostat (at least in any relatively recent model).
you do change the cooling setting of your fridge in winter, don't you?
Why, do you want your food to be warmer in the winter?
RIght, because of course when someone sells a phone they're going to immediately report it as stolen.
It's not like any records might exist that they had put it up for sale or something...
If that's your relationship - she withholds sex if you don't go along with her wishes - I pity you (and her).
What I don't understand is why they want to believe that Stealing code is a piece of property....
But Importing Code from another country is just information (not requiring import taxes etc....)
How on earth can it be both?
Erm, it can't? Hence the ruling that says it wasn't physical property?
information longs to be free
longs to be free?
Oh! I know, perhaps it yearns for freedom!
Or maybe it's just pining for the fields.
"saving" comments to an optionally shareable folder would be most excellent indeed. I often find that a comment has links or even just ideas that I want to explore when I have more time.
I like it. It works well for me, and avoids constant page loads/back navigation.
That said, I suspect they look at usage patterns - of course a vocal minority will complain because a vocal minority always complains. The question is what the silent majority (and if /. is like any other forum, the vast majority of people read plenty but never post a single comment) do. If the changes had caused readership to actually drop off, they would have revisited them.
Nobody is complaining about the advertisements that are marked as advertisements.
The complaints are about the advertisements masquerading as articles. I don't see a lot (1-2 a day, if that) but it does happen. The question is - are these advertisers paying slashdot (unlikely), paying the folks who pick the articles (possible but still not very likely) or have they simply found a way to abuse the submission process (most likely).
It's configurable. At the top right of the screen, click "Account", then click the "Posting" link/tab; for Comment Post Mode, choose "Plain Old Text".
Wasting your time. This is the same dude who - earlier in this discussion - posted such gems as "you're retarded" and "just die" in lieu of logical arguments.
That one is easy:. Zero terrorists * billions = $0 per terrorist -- now *that's* cost-efficiency!
At the core of it, does it really matter? We still can't stem the flow of juicy data by these means - such a scheme is rotten through and through.
(Alright... juicy was a stretch...)
I was going for fruity data...
Okay so you block admin queries, great. But most people attempting to hack are not out to destroy your db - they're trying to get data from it. The same kind of data that your applications need, and so can't be reliably blocked via heuristics. Chances are if you're naive enough to think that it will, you've also stored some nice juicy plaintext data in your db, ripe for plucking ;)
From your own given link: "in the absence of you voluntarily granting Lewis Cass ISD administration access to you[r] Facebook page, we will assume the worst and act accordingly.".
You're misreading. It doesn't say "administrative", it says "administration" -- which strongly implies that it's referring to a group of people, eg "[the] Lewis Cass ISD administration" who wants "access to you[r] Facebook page".
TFS gets it wrong and TFA never clarifies.
The administrator asked to view the Facebook account - no request was made for her password. Whether or not this is OK remains up for debate, but having the facts is always preferable...
Facebook has a similar policy yet you manage to just use a fake name. Why not do the same with Google? Too - if you can't be tagged why do you have to spend time untagging? And you do know that Facebook remembers the tags even if you untaggimgng? *they know who you are man!*
My point is that if you have real privacy concerns your only effective option is to not use these services - Facebook is certainly no better than Google.