Comment Who are you replying to? (Score 1) 599
How does this:
I'm confidently going to assume not listening to his medical advice makes me no less informed a person
Equate to this?:
Casting him as some kind of neo-nazi
How does this:
I'm confidently going to assume not listening to his medical advice makes me no less informed a person
Equate to this?:
Casting him as some kind of neo-nazi
I wonder what it costs retailers to deal with cash? You have to count it, keep it secure, deposit it, etc. etc. More or less than the percentage for electronic transactions?
The alternative is not necessarily paper money. There are many people who pay with debit cards and these provide all the benefits you alluded to without the equivalent surcharge.
I use a credit card for two reasons.
A) If someone swipes/steals that information, they're stealing VISA's money, not mine. If I use a debit card and they steal my info, they drain my bank account, my mortgage bounces. That's bad.
B) Rewards programs. I get thousands of dollars a year in rewards. I put
If you think these benefits are worth it, why should others who don't benefit share the cost?
I prefer to pay by credit card as well. It allows me to differ the payment and to get reward points. The problem is that it's not free. People that don't pay by credit card shouldn't be forced to pay as well - unless that's the store's policy. In that case people who insist on paying with a credit card will be free to find a better deal elsewhere.
I'm not a lawyer but I think there's a distinction between making money from your fame alone and making money from your profession. One is profiting from your crime. In any case, I don't believe he would have done any such thing. I'm merely pointing out that he might not have been able to even if he had he wanted to.
I thought he'd only recently been allowed to profit from his "crimes" which is why he's now allowed to publish this book.
I don't it's the end of the world either way but only the individuals that made the contribution should be the judge of how bad it is.
I also agree with most others here that this is way too complicated. Developers have already been caught in schemes like this. The company wants to have a low quality version that is GPL'd and hopefully get some software contributions back and they want to have a nicely packaged application with proprietary features. Since anybody else that wants to fork the software would need to do so under the AGPL L-N would get these contributions through the AGPL but they wouldn't need to share their proprietary additions. It's not what the GPL was intended for.
It's complicated and I think people are wise to this SugarCRM way of doing business.
Honestly, if they are looking for bug fixes, they can just open source their software - no redistribution rights required. People who use the software will gladly contribute bug fixes. For new features development, just continue paying for them.
Or better yet, go GPL all the way. Competition might actually be a good thing and when you start with most of the domain knowledge and brains that created it, I like the odds.
The scheme you propose makes these guys look like another SugarCRM. In a few years people will be complaining about L-N and L-N will be wondering why after open sourcing their code, nobody likes them.
If humans existed outside of Eden then what was the purpose of Eden? Was it only for a select few?
Also, which part of the Bible are literal and which are not?
I'm sure there's a dongle for that.
Agreed.
Also, isn't the \0 terminated string a library implementation more than a language implementation. The char* points to a string of chars. The effective size of the string is library dependent. If you don't like that strlen() looks for a terminating \0, just use a different library.
The fact that the std library still uses \0 terminated strings seems to indicate that it wasn't such a bad decision.
Now that I've commented, I'll go read the article and maybe change my mind.
Maybe it's because Apple doesn't sign their paycheck.
Maybe it's because they like the protection of the GPLv3 more than they would like their hugely popular software to run on the Apple platform as well.
One thing is certain though. They don't need to justify their choice. If you don't like GPLv3, don't use their software or fork from the GPLv2.
So how does that work if I buy a book? If I rip a few pages and let everyone know that by ripping pages 12 and 15 the book is much more entertaining have I done anything wrong? If I start describing the plot of a movie and give an opinion as to how that plot could have been better, have I done anything wrong?
I understand that if I start bypassing online security then I am trying to bypass something that doesn't belong to me. That, in my opinion, is wrong.
On the other hand, there are books and magazines that explain how to open locks and safe. These are perfectly legal, educational and sometimes useful. If I am not attempting to open your lock then I don't understand what I'm doing wrong.
Laws like the DMCA are simply wrong.
He's a little like a 2D character in Flatland that doesn't understand 3D.
Is this a reference to Gamow's One, Two, Three... infinity? In that case, Gamow showed ways for the 2D character to imagine 3D. There might be some hope for him yet.
"It is better for civilization to be going down the drain than to be coming up it." -- Henry Allen
