No doubt a lot of people quit WoW and never return, this increase in subscribers is obviously bigger than the number who quit, so churn is a good word to use.
If a new game (maybe AoC) gets a good rep then all the new blood will be going to it, new WoW subscribers will dwindle, the exodus from WoW will increase and they will start talking server mergers.
So maybe its the auditing and internal checks that are helping you to feel secure.
If civilian organisations/individuals had the same procedures that the police do to make sure they dont abuse their power would you still think they shouldnt have guns ?
The point i was trying to make is that a weapon is a tool.
We are comfortable with cops having weapons because we trust them, weapons are seen to be used responsible by cops (by most people).
So is it the tool or the person that should be controled ?
Im with you in saying that _some_ people shouldnt be allowed to have guns, but do you honestly think that responsible people should not be trusted with guns... do you think there arent any responsible people ?
"Please leave us alone to our gun-free lifestyle."
If you really want a gun free society then take guns away from police and the military, is that the society you want ?
We should all want to live in a society where people are responsible, but how do we get to that state.
Do we make a responsible society by making laws that attempt to punish and forced to be responsible, or is a contradiction to describe someone as being responsible only when they are forced ?
Perhaps we should give people enough freedom to allow them to be responsible of their own accord, only that way can they set a good example.
Its wrong to punish the innocent to protect them from the guilty.
People should be given the option of being responsible for themselves, how else can they learn responsibility ?
A government should empower its people, not impair them.
well, technically we don't have "freedom of speech". freedom of speech is not mentioned anywhere in the charter of rights and freedoms.
According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, you do.
From the preamble "Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,"
And from article 19. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
So if a corporation gets caught violating copyright three times, does corporation get banned from the internet, or is it yet another case where corporations get a free ride ?
Who was it that said that "a corporation has a body but no soul" ?
Introverts have a high level of cortical stimulation, they dont _need_ external events to stimulate them, they like quite time.
Extroverts have a low level of cortical stimulation, they need external events to stimulate their tiny^W minds, leave them in a quite room (or a library) for a few hours and they go crazy.
I expect extroverts would enjoy having people call them and give their brain something to do.
If I had a copyright interest here, I would be petitioning for disclosure of the terms
of the settlement, because there is reason to suspect the settlement itself may be a GPL
violation.>/i>
The chairman of the SFLC (who acted on behalf of Erik and Rob) is Eben_Moglen, if you read up on them i expect you would change your opinion.
If it was a large amount of money (and they are off on a spending spree, lol) then i would like to see it disclosed as it would assist other develpoers.
But if its only a small amount then i think it would be bad to disclose it, The infringing companies can look at the settlement and say, IF we get caught, and IF we get taken to court then the only extra costs are this small penalty (maybe $1) as they probably already have lawyers on staff so its not an EXTRA cost, and license compliance is something they would have had to do anyway, so its not an extra cost either.
I havent discussed this with Erik, Rob or the SFLC, i trust them, it might be best to discuss your concerns with them directly (email), so you can get the facts directly, maybe it would help the SFLC in future enforcments if they could add your name to future suits as well. AFAIK, the fact that Rob and Erik reside in the US, where the SFLC and the plantif are based helps with their enforcement.
I was also a busybox developer for a number of years, there are some important issues to mention...
1) The people involved Erik, Rob, SFLC have all donated much of their time over the years to advance the cause, im sure its about the principle, not the money. 2) They are enforcing the license, its been abused for years, its painful work and they are enforce it, successfully, its an important step in corporations to get past. 3) Getting the infringing company to pay _someone_ is the only punishment that might change their behavior, companies like this care more about the bottom line than they do about ethics. 4) Its not free money, the case has been going for months, and im sure they spent a lot of time on it. 5) SFLC was involved, im sure they have a lot of costs, and my guess is they got some of the settlement too. 6) Erik and Rob can enforce their contributions to busybox without requiring agreement from other copyright holders, the SFLC wouldnt stand by and let them do anything unethical. 7) Best not to jump and down about free money unless you know how much it is.
Having to pay an "undisclosed sum" to every open source coder they they have wronged must scare the crap out the corporate laweryers who are all to happy to roll the dice and advise a strategy of "do what we like until we get caught, then expect forgiveness".
If this news gets around, corporate lawyers might even take the time to read the GPL.
"Anarchy is a bad idea, and you're using that word to describe good ideas."
I think people say anarchy a lot when they mean chaos, they are quite different things.
Anarchy is an extreme form of freedom, and freedom is usually a good thing, so it should be seen as something to fear, but if you are at any extreme you need to exercise caution. I do accept that giving up freedoms _can_ increase overall freedom (which is why GPL is better than BSD), BSD is closer to anarchy than the GPL.
"we don't have the benefit of being sure that the code others release really includes the improvements they made"
I see that as an issue of trust, which is a different story.
The point ive been trying to make is that in the Free software movement you have choices... you dont have to follow linus's rules, you can choose make your own rules and compete with him (to the extent that licensing allows)
The 3rd law of software freedom is "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.", nowhere does it mention getting permission from the provider of the source.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt a lot of people quit WoW and never return, this increase in subscribers is obviously bigger than the number who quit, so churn is a good word to use.
If a new game (maybe AoC) gets a good rep then all the new blood will be going to it, new WoW subscribers will dwindle, the exodus from WoW will increase and they will start talking server mergers.
Nothing lasts forever.
"Still...it's hard for me to be enthusiastic when the only piece of software that I"
Maybe you could be enthusiastic for what it means to other people.
I see you're getting your English from the US too these days ;)
Cultural assimilation was part of the Free Trade Agreement; increased US TV content for aus (along with DMCA, and more power to drug companies)
Thank you USA !
Runs and Roses kept me away from many hours of study, one of the best.
So maybe its the auditing and internal checks that are helping you to feel secure.
If civilian organisations/individuals had the same procedures that the police do to make sure they dont abuse their power would you still think they shouldnt have guns ?
The point i was trying to make is that a weapon is a tool.
We are comfortable with cops having weapons because we trust them, weapons are seen to be used responsible by cops (by most people).
So is it the tool or the person that should be controled ?
Im with you in saying that _some_ people shouldnt be allowed to have guns, but do you honestly think that responsible people should not be trusted with guns... do you think there arent any responsible people ?
"But I ask you, have you ever been threatened by a gun in Australia? "
No, but i was trained to use one whilst in the military.
Still, we both should be objective enough to see outside our own experiences.
As much as i hate to admit it, i live in australia. The fact that you assumed i must be a foreigner because i disagree with you shows your bias.
You contradict yourself, you say we dont need guns then you imply its ok for police to have guns.
Is it harder for you to express your "opinion" without a script ?
"Please leave us alone to our gun-free lifestyle."
If you really want a gun free society then take guns away from police and the military, is that the society you want ?
We should all want to live in a society where people are responsible, but how do we get to that state.
Do we make a responsible society by making laws that attempt to punish and forced to be responsible, or is a contradiction to describe someone as being responsible only when they are forced ?
Perhaps we should give people enough freedom to allow them to be responsible of their own accord, only that way can they set a good example.
Its wrong to punish the innocent to protect them from the guilty.
People should be given the option of being responsible for themselves, how else can they learn responsibility ?
A government should empower its people, not impair them.
etc etc
Well if they cant snoop then it must be a tool of the terrorists, it must be banned !
My subconscious is still a part of "me", if _my_ subconscious exercises free will, then i exercise free will.
I dont have to know i have free will to have free will.
well, technically we don't have "freedom of speech". freedom of speech is not mentioned anywhere in the charter of rights and freedoms.
According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, you do.
From the preamble
"Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,"
And from article 19.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
So if a corporation gets caught violating copyright three times, does corporation get banned from the internet, or is it yet another case where corporations get a free ride ?
Who was it that said that "a corporation has a body but no soul" ?
Introverts have a high level of cortical stimulation, they dont _need_ external events to stimulate them, they like quite time.
Extroverts have a low level of cortical stimulation, they need external events to stimulate their tiny^W minds, leave them in a quite room (or a library) for a few hours and they go crazy.
I expect extroverts would enjoy having people call them and give their brain something to do.
Ali G didnt need all that, he just used a "herbal" tea (ganja)
How does one "look like a seething idiot" ?
Isnt it our thoughts/ideas that make us idiots or not, and you can actually see ones thoughts yet, and what does seething look like anyway ?
Ah, maybe you didnt mean what you said and you were just posting like a seething idiot.
I guess if you had an eye for detail you wouldnt be a M$ fanboi.
Agreed, the meaning of the message is more important than the manner in which it was delivered.
If I had a copyright interest here, I would be petitioning for disclosure of the terms of the settlement, because there is reason to suspect the settlement itself may be a GPL violation.>/i> The chairman of the SFLC (who acted on behalf of Erik and Rob) is Eben_Moglen, if you read up on them i expect you would change your opinion.
Well, obviously from the lawsuit, the company verizon was dealing with were not legitimate.
"If I buy a device I have to assume its completely legitimate."
Thats what a friend of mine said shortly before being charged with receiving stolen goods.
ohloh only gives the points to the person who uploaded the patch, not the person who wrote it.
If it was a large amount of money (and they are off on a spending spree, lol) then i would like to see it disclosed as it would assist other develpoers.
But if its only a small amount then i think it would be bad to disclose it, The infringing companies can look at the settlement and say, IF we get caught, and IF we get taken to court then the only extra costs are this small penalty (maybe $1) as they probably already have lawyers on staff so its not an EXTRA cost, and license compliance is something they would have had to do anyway, so its not an extra cost either.
I havent discussed this with Erik, Rob or the SFLC, i trust them, it might be best to discuss your concerns with them directly (email), so you can get the facts directly, maybe it would help the SFLC in future enforcments if they could add your name to future suits as well. AFAIK, the fact that Rob and Erik reside in the US, where the SFLC and the plantif are based helps with their enforcement.
I was also a busybox developer for a number of years, there are some important issues to mention...
1) The people involved Erik, Rob, SFLC have all donated much of their time over the years to advance the cause, im sure its about the principle, not the money.
2) They are enforcing the license, its been abused for years, its painful work and they are enforce it, successfully, its an important step in corporations to get past.
3) Getting the infringing company to pay _someone_ is the only punishment that might change their behavior, companies like this care more about the bottom line than they do about ethics.
4) Its not free money, the case has been going for months, and im sure they spent a lot of time on it.
5) SFLC was involved, im sure they have a lot of costs, and my guess is they got some of the settlement too.
6) Erik and Rob can enforce their contributions to busybox without requiring agreement from other copyright holders, the SFLC wouldnt stand by and let them do anything unethical.
7) Best not to jump and down about free money unless you know how much it is.
Having to pay an "undisclosed sum" to every open source coder they they have wronged must scare the crap out the corporate laweryers who are all to happy to roll the dice and advise a strategy of "do what we like until we get caught, then expect forgiveness".
If this news gets around, corporate lawyers might even take the time to read the GPL.
"Anarchy is a bad idea, and you're using that word to describe good ideas."
I think people say anarchy a lot when they mean chaos, they are quite different things.
Anarchy is an extreme form of freedom, and freedom is usually a good thing, so it should be seen as something to fear, but if you are at any extreme you need to exercise caution. I do accept that giving up freedoms _can_ increase overall freedom (which is why GPL is better than BSD), BSD is closer to anarchy than the GPL.
"we don't have the benefit of being sure that the code others release really includes the improvements they made"
I see that as an issue of trust, which is a different story.
The point ive been trying to make is that in the Free software movement you have choices... you dont have to follow linus's rules, you can choose make your own rules and compete with him (to the extent that licensing allows)
The 3rd law of software freedom is "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.", nowhere does it mention getting permission from the provider of the source.
Choosing to co-operate isnt a system of control.