Really? Which version? Did you run 1.0a? Still have it?
"... the first public release of Java and the HotJava web browser came on May 23, 1995. On January 9, 1996, the JavaSoft business group was formed by Sun Microsystems to develop the technology.[2] Two weeks later the first version of Java was released."
Also, didn't Red Hat buy JBoss? Why on earth would they not be strongly motivated to ship with built in JREs?
Sure they are. Maybe that's why they want a better license.
That is just a matter probability.
Hungarian first name, hungarian last name, three bottle of hungarian wine for sure. And the keyboard looks like an hungarian one and not as a finish one (difficult to be sure).
It was time to state it officialy: most CC licenses are simply not free. There is nothing wrong, they have their use *today* and every one can choose the license he prefers. However, that doesn't change the fact that they are not free. And it is often problematic: just take the NC clause. It is totaly ambiguous. OTOH, the "Art Libre" licence has no such problem.
It is great to see that many artists share their work (look at the success of Jamendo). But it is also important someone reminds us that these pieces of art are not free, that they can't be reused, mixed or modified.
Drinking is fine but not enough.
You missed the fact that there is two bottles of good hungarian wine on the last picture. Additionaly Janos is not czech or slovak (AFAIK, this is Jan) but is common in the magyar part of Slovakia.
What's more evil - belitting a site (bmw.de is not the first) because of tactics Google doesn't like, or randomly confirming that a selection of pages matches what the GoogleBots see, and quietly contacting/delisting/penalising sites with obvious spam?
They already do both, except that they do it manualy and rely partialy on the community of users. However, the main questions are:
1) how can the primitive google bot see the same as visitors? (no javascript, no CSS, no flash, no java,...)
2) how can it detect spam? (most spam websites are not cloaked, just full of generated, non-sense content)
Do you have any picture so I can judge the quality of this JPEG encoder? (joking)
That said, I noticed it too but the quality can be fixed. At 95, it is in general fine. At 90, it is acceptable. But that depends on the size and type of pictures. That would be interesting to have a fair comparaison with other libs.
I'm disappointed that after 10 years Google can't write a spider that DOESN'T identify itself as GoogleBot and confirms that pages match what the spider sees.
Do you mean they should cloak themselves?
No way, remember: "Don't do evil".
Not only that but the guy is certainly not a "whisky lover". Look at the last picture: you will see a bottle of Tokaj and one from Villany. These are excellent wines, much better than any whiskey.
Could you argue please? AFAIK, FS and OSS are similar for this question.
OSD: 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups.
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
Exactly. And that's what I mean. You can not put restriction but you can distribute the software only to a small number of persons. However these persons can do the same.
The length of the citation and the context.
For Google Search, the citation is short and matches the user input.
For Google News, the citation is (too) long, may include a picture, doesn't have any context and is automatic.
So that's completely different cases.
Slashdot Mirror
1321
way back in '94
Really? Which version? Did you run 1.0a? Still have it?
"... the first public release of Java and the HotJava web browser came on May 23, 1995. On January 9, 1996, the JavaSoft business group was formed by Sun Microsystems to develop the technology.[2] Two weeks later the first version of Java was released."
I did specify which license, by linking to the arguments about it.
You didn't.
Also, didn't Red Hat buy JBoss? Why on earth would they not be strongly motivated to ship with built in JREs?
Sure they are. Maybe that's why they want a better license.
Insightfull? I'm talking about full-scale organized piracy as an industry.
There is no piracy in China (since there is no copyright*).
This is just legal business.
*not the same copyright laws and no convention etc. I don't know the details.
... disk operating system that was actually called "DOS"? TRS-DOS? Amiga DOS? ProDOS? CP/M DOS? DR-DOS? FreeDOS?
DOS. The real one. Apple ][ DOS 3. And it was used by a large percentage of people, well 20 years ago.
Their spam filter will not suddenly become stronger
:D
They don't have spam filters. OTOH with the tax, they will be able to buy some. Genius
The client software (download) runs on Linux, OS X, and Windows, and works with any desktop feed reader.
New game in town: never use the word Java. BTW, it doesn't run on Linux and Windows. Except if you install Java of course.
People are more likely to drive like maniacs if they have a vehicle with airbags and ABS brakes than if they have one without.
Historical data shows the contrary. Conclusion is up to you.
That is just a matter probability. Hungarian first name, hungarian last name, three bottle of hungarian wine for sure. And the keyboard looks like an hungarian one and not as a finish one (difficult to be sure).
In Thunderbird, you can filter on arbitrary properties.
It was time to state it officialy: most CC licenses are simply not free. There is nothing wrong, they have their use *today* and every one can choose the license he prefers. However, that doesn't change the fact that they are not free. And it is often problematic: just take the NC clause. It is totaly ambiguous. OTOH, the "Art Libre" licence has no such problem. It is great to see that many artists share their work (look at the success of Jamendo). But it is also important someone reminds us that these pieces of art are not free, that they can't be reused, mixed or modified. Drinking is fine but not enough.
You missed the fact that there is two bottles of good hungarian wine on the last picture. Additionaly Janos is not czech or slovak (AFAIK, this is Jan) but is common in the magyar part of Slovakia.
I was just reporting a common opinion.
...)
What's more evil - belitting a site (bmw.de is not the first) because of tactics Google doesn't like, or randomly confirming that a selection of pages matches what the GoogleBots see, and quietly contacting/delisting/penalising sites with obvious spam?
They already do both, except that they do it manualy and rely partialy on the community of users. However, the main questions are:
1) how can the primitive google bot see the same as visitors? (no javascript, no CSS, no flash, no java,
2) how can it detect spam? (most spam websites are not cloaked, just full of generated, non-sense content)
Do you have any picture so I can judge the quality of this JPEG encoder? (joking)
That said, I noticed it too but the quality can be fixed. At 95, it is in general fine. At 90, it is acceptable. But that depends on the size and type of pictures. That would be interesting to have a fair comparaison with other libs.
I'm disappointed that after 10 years Google can't write a spider that DOESN'T identify itself as GoogleBot and confirms that pages match what the spider sees.
Do you mean they should cloak themselves?
No way, remember: "Don't do evil".
His first name is Janos, definitively hungarian.
Not only that but the guy is certainly not a "whisky lover". Look at the last picture: you will see a bottle of Tokaj and one from Villany. These are excellent wines, much better than any whiskey.
Gosh, a dumb elf has marked me as a troll.
Darnassus will burn!
BTW I've eaten him.
If you really want to take the term 'open source' to the extreme,
I use the OSD (opensource.org), nothing more, nothing less. And you can't restrict distribution. You can twist the meaning of 'opensource', I won't.
Could you argue please? AFAIK, FS and OSS are similar for this question.
OSD: 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups. The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
Exactly. And that's what I mean. You can not put restriction but you can distribute the software only to a small number of persons. However these persons can do the same.
The license may have a clause that limits who can get access to the software
An open-source license can not have such a clause.
The length of the citation and the context.
For Google Search, the citation is short and matches the user input.
For Google News, the citation is (too) long, may include a picture, doesn't have any context and is automatic.
So that's completely different cases.
Every one will be famous 15 minutes in his life. I guess it was the time for her.