Nokia has the largest market share, why do they have to catch up? The real thing is that Apple has to catch up and probably has used tecnology owned by Nokia illegally.
And at least on Slashdot we should value Nokia's hardware patents a little more than software patents. They spent real money on research. On the contrary, patenting "do something on user click" is not really that useful for the progress of human race...
It is still LGPL, there are plenty of libraries like that including Qt and Gtk and no one bitches about them being less free. I would never use Mono (Qt is so much better in every way), but please do not spread misinformation about software licenses. This licensing choice is perfectly good for Mono as it is for other projects.
They will simply not package the closed source version, ship the last open source one and deprecate the use of Mono for the future. Remember: there is no lock-in with Free Software. It cannot happen, period.
Reading most of the press reports it would seem that the allegation is based on similarities in the look, shown by screenshots. If you read from Plurk's post you will see that the code is identical apart from some variables that were called *Plurk* and got renamed to *Wall*... It sounds much more serious this way.
So you have just proven the GP point, by saying that we can call anyone brainwashed if they do not agree with us. Now you need to notice that doing it with USA citizens is not that all different than with Chinese ones.
As you should know before speaking of good and bad journalism, an unnamed article is considered an expression of the views from the journal itself. This is why they did not call the guy. It's not open to discussion, they think what they have written. And it is a display of intellectual honesty and clarifies the stance of the journal, so that you can take that into account next time you read it.
There are tons of comments like this: how can you not realize that you prove his point?
Since he does not want those details online he does not put them online. Because, I have to tell you, if you put something online, then it may happen that it goes online.
If you send information on the wire it's leaving your home, like your mail. And like your mail and your phone line it is protected, but only to some extent. Even your credit card transaction logs may be examined by the cops if they are relevant in a criminal case.
And I bet that he does not google his credit card number anyway.
Different treaties cover each one, and if Italy doesn't want the benefits of US military protection (and they do, otherwise the US military wouldn't be there), then they shouldn't sign those treaties. And I have no doubt should some Italian soldier commit a crime in the US while performing their duties, Italy would want to try it themselves.
We do not want them, we lost the fucking war, that is why we cannot get rid of them. Many people think they are unsafe (see USS Hartford case) and in general we do not want to support the war missions they perform. Our governments are simply not powerful enough to force them out.
In this case, the pilot and navigator did not have maps showing the cable car lines, and they claimed their instruments were malfunctioning. Would you hold them guilty because of that? I don't know that I would.
Then trial and sentence the guy that did not update the maps. 20 people died when they should be alive, someone has to pay, it is that simple. Of course the most likely explanation is that he was doing "top gun" style acrobatics, but you cannot admit that, can you?
A flat tax is fair if you think that money's value is proportional to the quantity of money. While it is true that it is monotonic, assuming linearity is foolish.
The stereotyped way to see it is: 10% off a 30k income is 10% less on food, water and roof, while 50% over 1000k is taken from ships, ferrari and golf fees.
Why is linearity so important to you? Defining money's value is a complicated matter.
Go research the New Deal and how many people the gov't employed in the 30's to ease the depression,
None of which actually worked. The economy didn't really recover until the US entered WW2, pulling millions of men out of the job market and putting them in uniform. The post-war boom owed more to the fact that the rest of the world laid in ruins while the US infrastructure and economy was virtually untouched.
Wealth indices like GDP, inflation rates and unemployment turned for the better in 1933. What do you mean for "economy did not really recover"? Is is an intentionally vague assertion so that no one can prove you wrong? In what sense entering WW2 has "fixed the economy"?
I am not arguing that war did not help, just that things were already going better and the economy would have recovered anyway. Also notice that the war helped by increasing demand for military wares, paid by the government, so you can see it fits nicely the "New Deal" spirit.
Since they want your data to be online, they are scrapping the hard disk. So a FS like Ext4, that shines on TB storages is not really useful. There are performance issues with all that metadata to be kept in synch, which may be relevant on the netbook scale (Google's target).
I don't think they really care about any of those. Any user of one product will be a faithful user of their online services, which they *do* care about. It a form of advertisement, if you will.
A 1-3% marketshare is good for them: they do not want to dominate. Of course if they start to dominate, you will see the real developer power of Google when it gets serious.
The problem is using the word "less" with something that has no clearly quantitative value. OP could have said "costs less than zero" or "cheaper than free" getting no ambiguity.
I agree that yours is a reasonable point of view. I rest my case based on my interpretation of the copyright law from a non-lawyer POV, aka my ramblings. Read at your own peril.
The copyright is granted by the state for a limited number of years. The duration is, I would say, established at this point. When the author signed it away he knew it was going to last a fixed time. What did he sign away "the whole copyright I was granted" or "the 35 years of copyright I was granted". At the time there was no difference, so he is given the opportunity to specify now.
I will partially reiterate, to clarify, using a car. The state grants you a car for your artistic merits, you sell it. The state decides you also deserve a sound system for your car. Who gets it, you or the current owner of the car?
I think it is unclear, thus the option to renegotiate.
But a copyright tranfer for 35 years is less valuable than a 75 years one. By simple fairness, if you change the terms of the deal you should allow to renegotiate. And sure as hell if the terms will ever be reduced it will not apply to closed deals.
Better than the OP's definition, but not correct. Zero-day means that at the time of the exploit no machine can have the fix already installed. They are different from the reverse-engineered bugs which are ineffective against properly updated software (i.e. when the admin does not suck).
Slashdot Mirror
It's bound to happen, just after the macbook drops below 800$...
Nokia has the largest market share, why do they have to catch up? The real thing is that Apple has to catch up and probably has used tecnology owned by Nokia illegally.
And at least on Slashdot we should value Nokia's hardware patents a little more than software patents. They spent real money on research. On the contrary, patenting "do something on user click" is not really that useful for the progress of human race...
It is still LGPL, there are plenty of libraries like that including Qt and Gtk and no one bitches about them being less free. I would never use Mono (Qt is so much better in every way), but please do not spread misinformation about software licenses. This licensing choice is perfectly good for Mono as it is for other projects.
They will simply not package the closed source version, ship the last open source one and deprecate the use of Mono for the future. Remember: there is no lock-in with Free Software. It cannot happen, period.
Reading most of the press reports it would seem that the allegation is based on similarities in the look, shown by screenshots. If you read from Plurk's post you will see that the code is identical apart from some variables that were called *Plurk* and got renamed to *Wall*... It sounds much more serious this way.
So you have just proven the GP point, by saying that we can call anyone brainwashed if they do not agree with us. Now you need to notice that doing it with USA citizens is not that all different than with Chinese ones.
It is understandable that he set it to private, just imagine if his employer could see him that way!
As you should know before speaking of good and bad journalism, an unnamed article is considered an expression of the views from the journal itself. This is why they did not call the guy. It's not open to discussion, they think what they have written. And it is a display of intellectual honesty and clarifies the stance of the journal, so that you can take that into account next time you read it.
There are tons of comments like this: how can you not realize that you prove his point?
Since he does not want those details online he does not put them online. Because, I have to tell you, if you put something online, then it may happen that it goes online.
If you send information on the wire it's leaving your home, like your mail. And like your mail and your phone line it is protected, but only to some extent. Even your credit card transaction logs may be examined by the cops if they are relevant in a criminal case.
And I bet that he does not google his credit card number anyway.
$ grep "blatant data tampering" highly_incriminating_file.txt # because conspiracies store their misdeeds in plaintext
I bet it is not the customers
If you had read the summary (or the article), they weren't screen scraping - it was the rss feed.
with which protocol do you think RSS is obtained? ESP?
Not that it matters, if you get to their content you are using their bandwidth. In this case they were so kind to cache, but the principle stays.
Different treaties cover each one, and if Italy doesn't want the benefits of US military protection (and they do, otherwise the US military wouldn't be there), then they shouldn't sign those treaties. And I have no doubt should some Italian soldier commit a crime in the US while performing their duties, Italy would want to try it themselves.
We do not want them, we lost the fucking war, that is why we cannot get rid of them. Many people think they are unsafe (see USS Hartford case) and in general we do not want to support the war missions they perform. Our governments are simply not powerful enough to force them out.
In this case, the pilot and navigator did not have maps showing the cable car lines, and they claimed their instruments were malfunctioning. Would you hold them guilty because of that? I don't know that I would.
Then trial and sentence the guy that did not update the maps. 20 people died when they should be alive, someone has to pay, it is that simple. Of course the most likely explanation is that he was doing "top gun" style acrobatics, but you cannot admit that, can you?
That won't be konfusing. I say that as a KDE user.
There korrected that for you ;)
*ahem* Fixed that for you.
K- K- K- KOMBO BREAKER!
A flat tax is fair if you think that money's value is proportional to the quantity of money. While it is true that it is monotonic, assuming linearity is foolish.
The stereotyped way to see it is: 10% off a 30k income is 10% less on food, water and roof, while 50% over 1000k is taken from ships, ferrari and golf fees.
Why is linearity so important to you? Defining money's value is a complicated matter.
Go research the New Deal and how many people the gov't employed in the 30's to ease the depression,
None of which actually worked. The economy didn't really recover until the US entered WW2, pulling millions of men out of the job market and putting them in uniform. The post-war boom owed more to the fact that the rest of the world laid in ruins while the US infrastructure and economy was virtually untouched.
Wealth indices like GDP, inflation rates and unemployment turned for the better in 1933. What do you mean for "economy did not really recover"? Is is an intentionally vague assertion so that no one can prove you wrong? In what sense entering WW2 has "fixed the economy"?
I am not arguing that war did not help, just that things were already going better and the economy would have recovered anyway. Also notice that the war helped by increasing demand for military wares, paid by the government, so you can see it fits nicely the "New Deal" spirit.
Since they want your data to be online, they are scrapping the hard disk. So a FS like Ext4, that shines on TB storages is not really useful. There are performance issues with all that metadata to be kept in synch, which may be relevant on the netbook scale (Google's target).
I don't think they really care about any of those. Any user of one product will be a faithful user of their online services, which they *do* care about. It a form of advertisement, if you will.
A 1-3% marketshare is good for them: they do not want to dominate. Of course if they start to dominate, you will see the real developer power of Google when it gets serious.
It is GNU/ChromeOS, give credit where it is due, please.
It depends on the degree. Self-censonring over political matters for fear of retaliation is not being civilized (it happens here in Italy).
In this particular case, it looks strange that the game is different in Russia. Either the content belongs to it or not, but this way is hypocritical.
Self-censorship is still censorship, the difference is that this happens also here in the west, it s hard for us to be righteous on these grounds.
The problem is using the word "less" with something that has no clearly quantitative value. OP could have said "costs less than zero" or "cheaper than free" getting no ambiguity.
I agree that yours is a reasonable point of view. I rest my case based on my interpretation of the copyright law from a non-lawyer POV, aka my ramblings. Read at your own peril.
The copyright is granted by the state for a limited number of years. The duration is, I would say, established at this point. When the author signed it away he knew it was going to last a fixed time. What did he sign away "the whole copyright I was granted" or "the 35 years of copyright I was granted". At the time there was no difference, so he is given the opportunity to specify now.
I will partially reiterate, to clarify, using a car. The state grants you a car for your artistic merits, you sell it. The state decides you also deserve a sound system for your car. Who gets it, you or the current owner of the car?
I think it is unclear, thus the option to renegotiate.
But a copyright tranfer for 35 years is less valuable than a 75 years one. By simple fairness, if you change the terms of the deal you should allow to renegotiate. And sure as hell if the terms will ever be reduced it will not apply to closed deals.
Better than the OP's definition, but not correct. Zero-day means that at the time of the exploit no machine can have the fix already installed. They are different from the reverse-engineered bugs which are ineffective against properly updated software (i.e. when the admin does not suck).