This is 100% true. The contents of the annotations are summaries of cases written by someone other than the court (sometimes the court's staff but most often by an indexing service like Lexis), and aren't actually law. Their sole purpose is to identify to attorneys and judges which cases stand for which principles. They are never even a complete statement of the law of that case, since they are usually a short paragraph long and only mention one of many issues the court dealt with. Half the time, the case identified by an annotation isn't even useful to the project, but they are always a good starting point.
So what he's saying is that we should all grab our botnets and assault Al Gore (the king of the internet), forcing him to give rights to those of us who own servers?
. . . I'm OK with this.
A markholder attempting to avoid dilution/abandonment only has an obligation to combat infringement of their mark. Legitimate uses of the mark, including the fair use associated with criticism in this case, do not affect the markholder's rights in any way.
Beyond the fact that they were both directives from the government, there are no similarities
Whatever NASA thought was a good idea:Three extremely technical laws, plus various state laws
Everything done in-house by NASA:Interacting with dozens of different providers using different systems that don't talk to each other, plus data verification from a few more agencies
Viewed as way to get one up on those darned ruskies:Extremely bitter partisan divide, was a major contentious issue in two elections
Willing to throw money at NASA to get it done:Part of the House of Representatives shut down the government and threatened default in order to build anti-ACA support for the next election
Actual Work Done:
Mostly in-house NASA work:Lots of contractors
Not that the exchange's launch hasn't been a complete disaster, but comparing the two is extremely tenuous.
Because the prima donnas at the heart of the story (Snowden and Greenwald) made and continue to make the story about themselves, rather than the material. A story about a reporter and his whistleblowing buddy on the lam, both making crazy statements that greatly overshadow the series but drier material they are disclosing, always played better and therefore was covered better.
At this point, everyone's tired of them, and has forgotten what the whole fuss was about.
Allowing more open development is fantastic. However, the summary (and really a ton of people) have the relationship at play with games backwards:
"This has helped developers focus less on creating a video game's underlying technology and more on the artistic and creative processes that actually make games fun to play."
The underlying technology, however, is the essence of the game. It's what tells us how mario moves compared to sonic or y metroid cant crawl. The artistic and creative process, while quite important, largely affect how a game is presented visually and thematically. The rise of one-size-fits-all platforms, designed to be broadly used not only between titles but between genres and platforms, has led to a massive homogenization of gameplay. Gameplay, of course, is what makes a game fun to actually play. Setting is not gameplay. Writing is not gameplay, and graphics aren't gameplay.
Yes, these platforms are customizable, but the distinctness that came with each game or class of games has largely been lost as games increasingly rely on generalized engines. Unity and Unreal (and various other engines) are great, but they're not responsible for freeing developers to make experimental games. To the extent that is happening, it is despite of, not because of, those engines.
SuSE has the best installation and configuration utility and has a ton of helpful user-run repos for packages. It also has builds for basically every windowing system, so you can pick your preference without any hacking, and when you do want to get down to brass tacks, the system will get out of your way (now that suseconfig is gone) and let you tinker as much as you please.
And when you screw everything up (half the fun, right?), it ships with a fantastic system repair tool to get you back on your feet. You can also use SuSE Studio to make a custom image if you have weird hardware.
It's a really great linux experience.
While I prefer the larger tipped version, I've used the micro before and it has a nice, clean small line. Great line of pens in either size.
My roadmap was to install Horde 4, which includes a time tracking/invoicing platform (time tracking and invoicing being a huge part of our business), but that is clearly no longer in the cards. Zarafa is a fine groupware suite for everything but that. My question is: are there any good web-based solutions for time tracking and invoicing, preferably OSS, available? Do any of them integrate with standard address books so we wouldn't have to double-book client information? Does this thing even exist?
Wait, there is a slashdot article on the front page detailing how to violate various broadcasters copyrights? I mean, I know it's preaching to the choir, but I'm astounded this is an actual article.
IPlayer in particular isn't region-locked because the BBC hates foreigners; the service is paid for by television licenses, which people outside of England (obviously) aren't paying. It's much more than just defeating a region-locking scheme, it's basically piracy. Seeing it front and center is crazy.
This is the most incoherent summary I've seen on slashdot yet. Maybe because it's so far in tinfoil hat territory, but still, wow.
Well, Anonymous is going to start their OWN pastebin! With hookers! And blackjack!
While I appreciate the thought that all software should be open-source, I can't shake the feeling that FOSS advocates are wasting their time and talent attempting to endlessly reinvent the wheel. I'm sure that avoiding proprietary blobs would be great, but it is worth all this effort with so little gain? You'll have a (very) small audience that will download it and put up with the inevitable incompatibilities, but why is so much effort being thrown at projects like this and nouveau; projects whose ideal result is something that perfectly mimics something that has already been made and is already in widespread use. Since ideal results are never possible, you are inevitably left making the excuse "sure, it's not as good, but it's more ideologically pure!" which is only really convincing for the most hardline ideologues.
Instead of endless FOSS projects just trying to replicate things we already have, I'd like to see these supremely generous and talented people work on new projects. Why spend time on nouveau when you could work on, say, a new cross-platform graphics API? I just don't think FOSS will ever gain significant mindshare as long as it is continuously trying to emulate functional applications that people are already using.