Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment To back up parent..... (Score 4, Informative) 309

From the GPL FAQ:

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

It looks to me that I can charge $1,000,000 for my GPL software and charge another $1,000,000 for the source.

Comment Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score 1) 204

Point taken. And I'm split regarding loser pays or out current system here in the US. (Your post gave me more to chew on - so thank you.)

But I have to wonder, what about the people who are being sued and the case isn't so cut and dried where you're not sure if you have a chance at winning?

Comment Re:Too bad the US can't comprehend this concept (Score 5, Insightful) 204

"Loser pays" also gives large corporations carte blanche to screw individuals.

Did your boss walk by or something? Please expand on that a little.

I'll try.

In a nutshell, big corp, no matter how much in the wrong the are, can wave in front of the 'little guy's" face that they'll keep him in court for years and if he loses, he'll be on the hook for millions of dollars in legal fees. I don't care how sure you are about your case, that's a huge disincentive to stick up for one's self. Now, add in the fact that the laws are skewed in the corporation's favor, it's a system that's ripe for even more abuse than we have now.

Imagine the RIAA going after folks and saying that they could fight and not only have to pay their own legal bills but also the RIAA's if they lose. No one would even think about it. The EFF would have to become very selective of the cases it took - even more than they are now.

And one last thing: there's a huge difference with an individual being stuck with the legal bills as opposed to a corporation. With a corporation, at least the big ones, they lose a lawsuit it's not a big deal - any legal costs an individual runs up they can pay out of their toilet paper budget. An individual loses and they're ruined.

For a loser pays system, I would want restrictions placed on what a corporation can do - maybe even preventing them from collecting legal fees when litigating against an individual in a "loser pays" system.

Comment That's right! (Score 1) 259

Yet another attempt by MSFT to influence Linux users. By charging them triple for the same product.

I can see this going over like a lead filled ballon. While costs for goods may rise and drive up prices, prices themselves have a way of going down with volume. Of course in a market (software) that doesn't produce physical products pricing is artificial anyways.

And look at the picture ! It s NAZI Salute!

There you go, it's all part of Gates' plan to take over the World and crush Linux! I can tell!

Comment How is this any different than now? (Score 2, Insightful) 259

[0004]The described implementations relate to social marketing. One technique identifies potential buyers of a product where the potential buyers belong to a social network. The technique determines a price to offer the product to individual potential buyers that considers both influence of the individual potential buyer within the social network and overall revenue from sales of the product to the potential buyers.

[0005]Another implementation identifies potential buyers of a product in a social network. The implementation arbitrarily selects a set of the potential buyers to offer the product at a relatively low price to influence the remaining potential buyers. The implementation also updates membership in the set by adding and removing individual potential buyers from the set until revenue from product sales to the social network is not increased by adding or removing an individual potential buyer from the set. The above listed examples are intended to provide a quick reference to aid the reader and are not intended to define the scope of the concepts described herein.

The rock stars get their guitars for free (Paul McCartney once commented:"When you're poor you cant' afford them and when you're rich they give them to you.) is the same thing.

Or how about paying celebrities to use your product.

Now the randomly selecting people part. What's wrong with that? So they're trying to accelerate the product to the tipping point.

This will hurt no one and this was just an "article" to have an excuse to bash Microsoft about something. *yawn*

Comment Re:Won't work. Unrealistic. (Score 1) 339

First) So I'm not multitasking by listening to the radio, talking on the phone, typing this post, thinking about what i'm listening to on the radio, thinking about what i'm talking about on the phone, thinking about what i'm typing here, thinking about my posture, thinking about when i should take my next sip of coffee, etc, etc, etc?

Nope, you're not. You give each activity a minuscule attention.

Two) If people couldn't do what they've been trained and licensed to do, they would fail the training, and thus be unable to pass the licensing examination. They would also drive all over the road in both directions at all times while ignoring all signs and markers. I've seen video of this in 3rd world countries, the USA is 1st world thankfully your ideas don't match reality.

Wrong again. They do what they need to do to pass and then do what they want once they're on the road.

D) Nothing is impossible except banning cell phone usage in cars being the only solution.

I'm afraid you may have gotten me there.

Comment Won't work. Unrealistic. (Score 5, Insightful) 339

It's the enforcement. We have really, really high fines here for all sorts of traffic violations, but enforcement is so lacking that it almost seems random. Your chances of getting caught are miniscule, so people learn to ignore the law. If they do get caught, the fines are staggering - but the one in ten thousand chance of getting caught is not a deterrent.

Actually it's not the fines or enforcement. It's training. Every police vehicle I've seen has a laptop mounted on the center console. Every time I see a cop driving around they have one hand on the keyboard and constantly glance back and forth between the road and the computer.

Cell phones and cars aren't going away anytime soon. Instead of punishing the citizens for doing something police are trained to do, train the citizens too. There is no reason that drivers ed. classes shouldn't discuss this and deal with it.

I think the best way to "think of the children" is to teach the children. If you don't want little Lisa to text and drive into a horrible wreck, teach her how to text and drive responsibly. Otherwise take your blanket statements and have every computer removed from police vehicles because otherwise we have an effective working double standard which provides revenue to the police force. Fuck that shit.

First of all, you cannot train folks to multitask because humans are incapable of doing it. The cops can't do it either. What you call multitasking is actually them selecting attention rapidly between their laptops and driving - if they're even doing that.

Two, even if it were possible to train folks how to do it, what makes you think that folks will follow their training? People are trained not to tailgate, speed, cut others off, etc...

Everything you've proposed is impossible. The ONLY solution is to ban cell phones in cars. There is absolutely no reason to talk in a car anyway - no exceptions. Got to talk? Pull over.

Comment Re:Health reform for the stupid (Score 2, Interesting) 85

Interesting. I'm going to send my wife, who's in health care, that link.

All I know is, regardless of what happens, when I need some sort of major treatment, I'll be on a plane to India to get treated by an American educated Indian doctor and then spend some time on a tropical beach with my wife to recuperate - all for a third of what it will cost here.

Comment I'm not much of a Pizza snob but... (Score 1) 920

The only big chain pizza place that's even edible is Papa John's. ALthough, it gives me and my wife horrible heart burn. It's order a pizza and Tums.

Pizza in California is a big cracker with ketchup and some shit cheese and shit that has no business being on a pizza.

Domino's tastes like cardboard with ketchup.

Pizza Hut has so much grease that I believe it is a fire hazard.

The best pizza is NOT in NYC. It's pretty good in New Haven, CT but the best I've ever had was at some Italian immigrant's place in a sub-urban CT town. CT has a LOT of Italians.

Mexicans make awesome pizza.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. -- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928

Working...