* Payoff. You get to see what they did to the code - perhaps they made 90%+ efficiency improvements or robustness/compatibility improvements. Tit for tat.
(BTW, I think for "value of the code itself" you really meant "Price".)
when i type "cumshot" (or whatever) into google i get alot of garbage sites that arn't actually websites at all. they redirect you somewhere else, to some big advertising trap where 8 windows open immediately.
I hope you're hitting the Help us improve link at the bottom.
I think my point is that with the machines, how do you know you completed the transaction? There's no receipt or verification. Maybe I pressed vote, but it didn't register. Maybe there's a bug in the code that says:
if vote != Republican rollback else commit
Although it wouldn't address buggy code, a simple way to verify that a vote was completed would be to have an auxiliary colored lightbulb temporarily light up upon completion; it'd be a simple matter for the staff to check for this (if they aren't busy); hopefully at least two aren't colorblind.
If they had simply made available a definition or example of how the e-mail should be composed (e.g. anything above or below some number of hyphens would be removed), this could've been prevented. A web form would've been ideal - e-mail/address/phone doesn't even need to be intricate, two multiline text fields would be enough to separate personal info from comment content.
I'm thinking at least checking/filtering on the vcard spec would take care of a LOT of the personal info.
One unanswered question: did they attempt to do it partway then abandon, or was it a no-starter?
And I am sure if someone in the near future did a search in Google on "Facts about Microsoft Corporation" - this will be the first document that will show up in exclusion to almost everything else about M$.
And if only you had provided an actual working link to it, you would've helped "get the ball rolling".
Going between 2.3.50 and 2.6.0 means that you are ignoring all changes that were temporarily put in and then removed. Not that I suspect there are any, but...
Asset ownership, economic support, etc. can all be accomplished via a contract, which is arguably what Marriage is. Corporations don't seem to have a problem with asset ownership.
http://www.microsoft.com/internetexplorer/%01@mo zi lla.org
That won't work. A slash after the address is treated as part of the "directory" - in this case, it would look on www.microsoft.com
for "%01@mozilla.org" content under
"internetexplorer".
Also, and this is a direct question to you Bruce, what happens if I wrote a program 5 years ago, GPLed it, and have now lost the source code? Am I still liable for fulfilling the GPL?
While I'm not Bruce, I can answer this question. 3b of the GPL states three years. But note that the written offer must be included with your distribution. Alternatively, you can go with 3c if your distribution isn't commercial.
If section 3 wasn't fulfilled (fails "provided that you also do one of the following" clause), then it wasn't really GPL'd.
Of course, your next phrasing might use 2 years instead of 5 years. If you went with 3b and lost everything in a fire and nobody has source code... I dunno. The idea that you would commit to 3b and not have a good plan to fulfill it... but to me that "begs" the question of why you wouldn't just go with 3a in the first place.
One.
When one uses one in a general sense, there is no gender required. One is likely to receive fewer complaints when using one rather than they in a singular form.
Are you sure it can happen? I don't think so. For a Score:1 Redundant to be above (earlier within the HTML than) a Score:5 Insightful within Threaded, High Scores First for an unlogged in user, I assert you'd need:
The Score:1 Redundant is a top reply (because replies to replies are only visible when score >=4 for unlogged in users)
The Score:5 Insightful is a reply either within said Score:1 Redundant thread or within another Score:1 thread (because all Score:1 top replies are grouped together [from old to new] below the Score:2 top replies)
But whether said Score:5 is under said Score:1 or another Score:1, it's still posted after said Score:1, not before, meaning that said Score:1 Redundant must've been moderated Redundant in reponse to a post other than said Score:5 Insightful.
If we were discussing Flat layout or mis-moderation, I'd agree that it could happen. But, AFAIK, we aren't.
BTW, in your last sentence: "s/the mod/some mod/" (or perhaps even "s/the mod/most mod/").
if you do this, the timeline of the discussion is broken and all your friends wonder why a post is regarded as redundant when they read the exact same thing few posts later with a +5 insightful.
Have you actually tried Threaded, High Scores First?
Redundant moderation counts as -1, so it's unlikely that there'd be a Score:5, Redundant. I, personally, can't recall ever having seen a Score:5, Redundant; and I'm doubtful that it's even possible.
I just tried slashdot.org as a new user, the defaults are Threshold=1, Threaded, Oldest First. (An improvement, it was Flat instead of Threaded!) The only postings displayed were Score:4 and Score:5 except top replies, of which 1 was the threshold (so a Score:1 top reply was visible but not its Score:3 child). Doing High scores first would bring those Score:1 and Score:2 top replies to the bottom on a popular story.
(By "top replies", I mean use of the Reply button next to the Change button rather than a "Reply to this" hyperlink.)
Going with a higher (>+2) threshold makes sense, but a rookie newspaper reporter looking at a recently posted Slashdot discussion might be astonished to find no reply content at all! But maybe that isn't such a bad thing...
Maybe I'm just not envisioning things properly; can you come up with a sid and a couple of cids where Threaded, High Scores First had the Redundant posting before the Score:5, Insightful?
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
IIRC, one of SCO's complaints was about how this last sentence made it seem like the FSF was the be-all end-all enforcement arm of the GPL, usurping other copyright holders' responsibility for enforcement. With some credit, I do find the wording a bit vague, and the GPL's explanation doesn't help much. Maybe I'm too dense?
Who is a "third party" (recipient? their recipient? anyone other than FSF?)
What does enforcement responsibility cover? (active checking? passive replying? forwarding?)
Can someone elect to be "responsible"?
IANAL, maybe these are already well-defined and I'm just unsophisticated.
Whoa, introduced in 1983? Geez, I remember drawing that in my pre-Atari days (possibly late 1970's; definitely 1981 or before) - filled up a bunch of graph paper.
But I don't think I can prove prior art. Oh, it was derived from Pascal's Triangle, changing odd to a dark spot and even to a light spot. I wonder if Wolfram came up with that explanation?
Geez, GroupWise has had that since at least 5.0, although admittedly the granularity is in one day increments. Makes me wonder if they OutLook has delayed sending yet (really handy for sending anniversary messages)...
Regarding Citadel, if you'd like to try a Windows version from an end-user perspective, Slumberland has a telnet-able interface. It's more of a MUD. I don't have any first-hand experience with Lotus Notes, but if you're expecting something like this, sorry, the Citadels I've used (Seattle) don't tend to be very graphical. But I've been out of it for a couple of years.
Citadel (and most other BBS software) was designed for extremely low bandwidth (think 300-1200bps). A graphical interface similar to Lotus Notes would be worthy of a fork - I'm thinking you'll find the architecture way too different.
I've been a Citadel+ developer (and ACit prior to that) but I have no development experience with Citadel/UX (other than looking over the code a decade ago).
Yeah, thanks to Citadel, which used YYmmmDD dates, I've been using year-first for nearly two decades. But when I heard about the actual ISO 8601 standard, instant switch. Yay!
BTW, FWIW, I agree that you got a raw deal on that Flamebait moderation. I'd considered the sun to be non-renewable, but not using that specific term, only that it has a limited (albeit L-O-N-G) lifespan. I can only speculate that the moderator didn't read past your first line and treated the first line as representative... ouch!
Slashdot Mirror
* Payoff. You get to see what they did to the code - perhaps they made 90%+ efficiency improvements or robustness/compatibility improvements. Tit for tat.
(BTW, I think for "value of the code itself" you really meant "Price".)
Attempting a buffer overflow or other exploit was impractical? It's a much surer sign of copying than strings...
I hope you're hitting the Help us improve link at the bottom.
Although it wouldn't address buggy code, a simple way to verify that a vote was completed would be to have an auxiliary colored lightbulb temporarily light up upon completion; it'd be a simple matter for the staff to check for this (if they aren't busy); hopefully at least two aren't colorblind.
If they had simply made available a definition or example of how the e-mail should be composed (e.g. anything above or below some number of hyphens would be removed), this could've been prevented. A web form would've been ideal - e-mail/address/phone doesn't even need to be intricate, two multiline text fields would be enough to separate personal info from comment content.
I'm thinking at least checking/filtering on the vcard spec would take care of a LOT of the personal info.
One unanswered question: did they attempt to do it partway then abandon, or was it a no-starter?
And if only you had provided an actual working link to it, you would've helped "get the ball rolling".
I'm sorry it never dawned on you that the ticking must've been coming from something else.
Was there an error during pasting?
Going between 2.3.50 and 2.6.0 means that you are ignoring all changes that were temporarily put in and then removed. Not that I suspect there are any, but...
Asset ownership, economic support, etc. can all be accomplished via a contract, which is arguably what Marriage is. Corporations don't seem to have a problem with asset ownership.
If you can somehow tie a spam to a scientology insult, I'd bet there'd be some action.
If you go into Tools | Internet Options... | General | Accessibility... then enable the Ignore font sizes specified on Web pages checkbox.
Horribly ugly.It was bound to happen - the card had to happen somehow!
If section 3 wasn't fulfilled (fails "provided that you also do one of the following" clause), then it wasn't really GPL'd.
Of course, your next phrasing might use 2 years instead of 5 years. If you went with 3b and lost everything in a fire and nobody has source code... I dunno. The idea that you would commit to 3b and not have a good plan to fulfill it... but to me that "begs" the question of why you wouldn't just go with 3a in the first place.
One. When one uses one in a general sense, there is no gender required. One is likely to receive fewer complaints when using one rather than they in a singular form.
- The Score:1 Redundant is a top reply (because replies to replies are only visible when score >=4 for unlogged in users)
- The Score:5 Insightful is a reply either within said Score:1 Redundant thread or within another Score:1 thread (because all Score:1 top replies are grouped together [from old to new] below the Score:2 top replies)
But whether said Score:5 is under said Score:1 or another Score:1, it's still posted after said Score:1, not before, meaning that said Score:1 Redundant must've been moderated Redundant in reponse to a post other than said Score:5 Insightful.If we were discussing Flat layout or mis-moderation, I'd agree that it could happen. But, AFAIK, we aren't.
BTW, in your last sentence: "s/the mod/some mod/" (or perhaps even "s/the mod/most mod/").
Redundant moderation counts as -1, so it's unlikely that there'd be a Score:5, Redundant. I, personally, can't recall ever having seen a Score:5, Redundant; and I'm doubtful that it's even possible.
I just tried slashdot.org as a new user, the defaults are Threshold=1, Threaded, Oldest First. (An improvement, it was Flat instead of Threaded!) The only postings displayed were Score:4 and Score:5 except top replies, of which 1 was the threshold (so a Score:1 top reply was visible but not its Score:3 child). Doing High scores first would bring those Score:1 and Score:2 top replies to the bottom on a popular story.
(By "top replies", I mean use of the Reply button next to the Change button rather than a "Reply to this" hyperlink.)
Going with a higher (>+2) threshold makes sense, but a rookie newspaper reporter looking at a recently posted Slashdot discussion might be astonished to find no reply content at all! But maybe that isn't such a bad thing...
Maybe I'm just not envisioning things properly; can you come up with a sid and a couple of cids where Threaded, High Scores First had the Redundant posting before the Score:5, Insightful?
- Who is a "third party" (recipient? their recipient? anyone other than FSF?)
- What does enforcement responsibility cover? (active checking? passive replying? forwarding?)
- Can someone elect to be "responsible"?
IANAL, maybe these are already well-defined and I'm just unsophisticated.But I don't think I can prove prior art. Oh, it was derived from Pascal's Triangle, changing odd to a dark spot and even to a light spot. I wonder if Wolfram came up with that explanation?
Geez, GroupWise has had that since at least 5.0, although admittedly the granularity is in one day increments. Makes me wonder if they OutLook has delayed sending yet (really handy for sending anniversary messages)...
Ok, how about the end of photocopiers?
--
Citadel (and most other BBS software) was designed for extremely low bandwidth (think 300-1200bps). A graphical interface similar to Lotus Notes would be worthy of a fork - I'm thinking you'll find the architecture way too different.
I've been a Citadel+ developer (and ACit prior to that) but I have no development experience with Citadel/UX (other than looking over the code a decade ago).
BTW, FWIW, I agree that you got a raw deal on that Flamebait moderation. I'd considered the sun to be non-renewable, but not using that specific term, only that it has a limited (albeit L-O-N-G) lifespan. I can only speculate that the moderator didn't read past your first line and treated the first line as representative... ouch!