"Hello there, I'd like to purchase a new Vehical." "Here ya' go. It comes free with this Two-Hundred Dollar Motor." "Wow! That's a great deal" "Sure is!"
[drives off]
[-one day later-] "This car, actually, it has no brakes. I didnt realize it before because I'm a shitty driver." "That's okay, I'll fix it for free." "Oh, well yeah, I think you're legally obligated to." "Yep." "Thanks." "But that car? I own it now, K?" "..."
Well the posts seem to all say the same thing, here's a summary: In most places, Emergency Calls are free. An obscure mountain path durring a blizzard doesnt seem like the most likely place to get cellphone coverage. Soliciting on Cellphones is illegal in many places, just like soliciting on Fax Machines.
If we're busy pulling things from 'The Pledge' how about "To the flag of"? It's time we pledged ourselves to our/NATION/, not some symbol. Pledge yourself to a symbol, and you wont care what changes go on behind it. Pledge yourself to the Nation, and make sure that Nation is what it should be.
I've never understood why someone doesnt just make a battle-bot loaded with the quake engine, program some Quake AI into it, and put in a Map of the arena... Or at least, have a Quake-Style keyboard interface. Those RC controllers are bitchy
You may now respond to force or threat of force with an equally powerful force, percentage-wise. eg: The RIAA does everything they can to shut down a P2P network, unleashing 100% of its destructive power on that task, the whole of the internet may respond with 100% of/its/ destructive power in eliminating the threat.
The point is, he doesnt want to pay for new stuff that does nothing for him but get in the way when he still doesnt see the features he really wants: He'll wait until the next version. The company can meet the customers' demands or not have those customers.
True Backwards-Compatability
on
Version Fatigue
·
· Score: 1
new features, new layouts, changed ways of doing things.. If your files are backwards-compatable, why not your interface? Why not just have an option: "Look and act exactly like the last version. And don't fuck up as much."?
That's something that companies like Microsoft won't admit to. Simply say that, make it clear, on all your software, and you don't have worry about liability. Just say: "Use at your own risk" It's what you do with Microsoft products, but Microsoft won't/admit/ it. Admit when your product could potentially suck ass, and you'll be fine, legally.
Man schools only allow certain calculators to be used on their tests, and for finals at my school, all memories were wiped or the calculator could not be used. This is also standard practice at the SATs, I believe
GPL vs Open Source is a clearly different thing. GPL means the code is free to be used by anyone, provided they release _all_ their code as GPL. Open source just means the code is visible to anyone. This gives 3rd-parties an easier time making programs which work with yours. Their main points are that GPL is flawed due to requiring anything which uses GPLd code [no matter how little] to be licensed under the GPL; and, that most GPL projects encourage many unvarifiable developers to take part in the project, resulting in potential malicious code being inserted without anyone else taking notice.
Remember: Open-Source does not mean FREE software, it doesnt even mean "Libre" software, it just means that you can see the code. That is _ALL_ it means. The internet would not have become so popular if not for the ease of looking at the code a page is displayed by, and learning from that code. Does that mean that you can legally copy word-for-word a copywrited web page? Of course not. But can you build a related site that offers a seemless transition in style of display between the websites? Of course you can.
Open Source allows you to see what someone did, how they did it, and then use that in order to make something which can work alongside the original product. Neither of you is required to give away anything for free, and why would you want to?
GPL, however, is known as a "Viral" license, in that using code from something licensed under the GPL requires that your code is now GPL-infected. I personally have no problem with this, since there is a simple protection from this so-called "Virus" by just NOT USING GPL'd CODE IN SOMETHING YOU DONT WANT TO GIVE AWAY THE SOURCE TO. I dont think the GPL has anything against reverse-engineering in it, so anyone who wants their program to work with GPLd software but doesnt want to use GPL is no worse off than if the others werent using GPL.
Opponents of Open-Source dont seem to understand that while you can't trust an individual, that individual's code has to work well with everyone else involved in the project. The result is that not only will this untrustworthy individual be sneaking in his code, but he'll be doing it with everyone else watching. You would have to expect that not just the one person, but everyone working on the project, was out to get you. If you assume that, then you're still a lot better off than the same situation occuring with closed-source software. In fact, due to the GPL's "Viral" nature, you are far better off under the GPL. Remember: millions of people able to be intimately familiar with the code means millions of people able to see a problem. If you use the infected [two-meanings] code in your program, then yours is now GPL'd, and not only will everyone who was working with the other software have the potential to spot a problem, but everyone working with your software can too. This just increases the chance that the problem will be found. If, on the other hand, it is merely "Open-Source", not "GPL'd" then the number of people potentially working with your code is vastly reduced. Instead of people writing code and wanting to contribute it to the project, they'll just be writing it for themselves. If they were contributing to the project, able to redistribute it themselves, they could use the code, other people could see what they were working on, help out, and in general- just have more people working on the code.
The article seems to think that the more people work on code, the worse off they are, due to the increased likelyhood of malicious code being inserted. However, the more people work on the code, the more chance there is of malicious code being caught. I would hope that there is some law in place which makes writing malicious code into open software just as much a crime as writing any other virus, the only problem is that it would be harder to determine from where the code originated.
I just said a bunch of random stuff and not all of it is accurate or precise or true or meaningful. So just ignore everything I said, k'?
Actually, it is a better idea.
on
DRM Helmet
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'd rather have a helmet stuck on me than be prevented from developing software which doesnt have a helmet in it. It would be much simpler, and despite any protests, you/would/ get used to it. And a lot faster than you'd be able to get used to the idea of someone controlling what you can do. Someone controlling what you can do vs Someone controlling what others can do to you. Isnt that what we have the constitution for? I'm all for it.
Typing of the dead! Quite possibly the most educational videogame ever. If I had this thing, I wouldnt have slipped by the edge of typing class despite being able to type at least 40wpm
Wow, you seemed to have missed the point even with that whole last sentance explaining how-not-to-miss-the-point. Quite remarkable it must be, since I just remarked on it.
Slashdot Mirror
east coast dont got sheit, go west.
Or, alternatively,
get a friend who is west
Informative: +2 Overated: -1 Underrated: +3 Flamebait: -1 Off-Topic: -237
There's a fun asteroids-type game on that page ^_^
"Hello there, I'd like to purchase a new Vehical."
"Here ya' go. It comes free with this Two-Hundred Dollar Motor."
"Wow! That's a great deal"
"Sure is!"
[drives off]
[-one day later-]
"This car, actually, it has no brakes. I didnt realize it before because I'm a shitty driver."
"That's okay, I'll fix it for free."
"Oh, well yeah, I think you're legally obligated to."
"Yep."
"Thanks."
"But that car? I own it now, K?"
"..."
Well the posts seem to all say the same thing, here's a summary:
In most places, Emergency Calls are free.
An obscure mountain path durring a blizzard doesnt seem like the most likely place to get cellphone coverage.
Soliciting on Cellphones is illegal in many places, just like soliciting on Fax Machines.
so is it real?
"Under God" was added in 1954.. How is that what it started as?
If we're busy pulling things from 'The Pledge' how about "To the flag of"? /NATION/, not some symbol. Pledge yourself to a symbol, and you wont care what changes go on behind it. Pledge yourself to the Nation, and make sure that Nation is what it should be.
It's time we pledged ourselves to our
I've never understood why someone doesnt just make a battle-bot loaded with the quake engine, program some Quake AI into it, and put in a Map of the arena...
Or at least, have a Quake-Style keyboard interface. Those RC controllers are bitchy
This is like MSNBC reporting that Slashdot doesnt like Microsoft
You may now respond to force or threat of force with an equally powerful force, percentage-wise. eg: The RIAA does everything they can to shut down a P2P network, unleashing 100% of its destructive power on that task, the whole of the internet may respond with 100% of /its/ destructive power in eliminating the threat.
One vote for Aye.
Alright, this statement seems to say "We download pirated music. Is this okay?"
No, you fucking moron. Next question please.
The point is, he doesnt want to pay for new stuff that does nothing for him but get in the way when he still doesnt see the features he really wants: He'll wait until the next version. The company can meet the customers' demands or not have those customers.
new features, new layouts, changed ways of doing things.. If your files are backwards-compatable, why not your interface?
Why not just have an option: "Look and act exactly like the last version. And don't fuck up as much."?
Though, after 30 years, physics erases it for you.
That's something that companies like Microsoft won't admit to. Simply say that, make it clear, on all your software, and you don't have worry about liability. Just say: "Use at your own risk" /admit/ it. Admit when your product could potentially suck ass, and you'll be fine, legally.
It's what you do with Microsoft products, but Microsoft won't
This means I would get money every time someone re-sells the CD, right? I mean, I have as much legal right to do so.
Man schools only allow certain calculators to be used on their tests, and for finals at my school, all memories were wiped or the calculator could not be used. This is also standard practice at the SATs, I believe
So many people have drawn the same conclusion about something I didnt even say in the first place...
..all two or three of you..
aside from that one guy who seems to think that there is only one definition of the term "open"
GPL vs Open Source is a clearly different thing. GPL means the code is free to be used by anyone, provided they release _all_ their code as GPL.
Open source just means the code is visible to anyone. This gives 3rd-parties an easier time making programs which work with yours.
Their main points are that GPL is flawed due to requiring anything which uses GPLd code [no matter how little] to be licensed under the GPL; and, that most GPL projects encourage many unvarifiable developers to take part in the project, resulting in potential malicious code being inserted without anyone else taking notice.
Remember: Open-Source does not mean FREE software, it doesnt even mean "Libre" software, it just means that you can see the code. That is _ALL_ it means.
The internet would not have become so popular if not for the ease of looking at the code a page is displayed by, and learning from that code. Does that mean that you can legally copy word-for-word a copywrited web page? Of course not. But can you build a related site that offers a seemless transition in style of display between the websites? Of course you can.
Open Source allows you to see what someone did, how they did it, and then use that in order to make something which can work alongside the original product. Neither of you is required to give away anything for free, and why would you want to?
GPL, however, is known as a "Viral" license, in that using code from something licensed under the GPL requires that your code is now GPL-infected. I personally have no problem with this, since there is a simple protection from this so-called "Virus" by just NOT USING GPL'd CODE IN SOMETHING YOU DONT WANT TO GIVE AWAY THE SOURCE TO.
I dont think the GPL has anything against reverse-engineering in it, so anyone who wants their program to work with GPLd software but doesnt want to use GPL is no worse off than if the others werent using GPL.
Opponents of Open-Source dont seem to understand that while you can't trust an individual, that individual's code has to work well with everyone else involved in the project. The result is that not only will this untrustworthy individual be sneaking in his code, but he'll be doing it with everyone else watching. You would have to expect that not just the one person, but everyone working on the project, was out to get you. If you assume that, then you're still a lot better off than the same situation occuring with closed-source software. In fact, due to the GPL's "Viral" nature, you are far better off under the GPL. Remember: millions of people able to be intimately familiar with the code means millions of people able to see a problem. If you use the infected [two-meanings] code in your program, then yours is now GPL'd, and not only will everyone who was working with the other software have the potential to spot a problem, but everyone working with your software can too. This just increases the chance that the problem will be found.
If, on the other hand, it is merely "Open-Source", not "GPL'd" then the number of people potentially working with your code is vastly reduced. Instead of people writing code and wanting to contribute it to the project, they'll just be writing it for themselves. If they were contributing to the project, able to redistribute it themselves, they could use the code, other people could see what they were working on, help out, and in general- just have more people working on the code.
The article seems to think that the more people work on code, the worse off they are, due to the increased likelyhood of malicious code being inserted. However, the more people work on the code, the more chance there is of malicious code being caught.
I would hope that there is some law in place which makes writing malicious code into open software just as much a crime as writing any other virus, the only problem is that it would be harder to determine from where the code originated.
I just said a bunch of random stuff and not all of it is accurate or precise or true or meaningful. So just ignore everything I said, k'?
I'd rather have a helmet stuck on me than be prevented from developing software which doesnt have a helmet in it. It would be much simpler, and despite any protests, you /would/ get used to it. And a lot faster than you'd be able to get used to the idea of someone controlling what you can do.
Someone controlling what you can do vs Someone controlling what others can do to you. Isnt that what we have the constitution for?
I'm all for it.
It looks fake.. to me. Seems like the people are just placed in the image
If you read the page, it says that's where he got the idea
Never make any enhancements, only security patches.
gee, that's simple
Typing of the dead! Quite possibly the most educational videogame ever. If I had this thing, I wouldnt have slipped by the edge of typing class despite being able to type at least 40wpm
Wow, you seemed to have missed the point even with that whole last sentance explaining how-not-to-miss-the-point. Quite remarkable it must be, since I just remarked on it.