Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Bogus headline, flamebait. Shame, EFF. (Score 5, Insightful) 301

Words mean things, and in this case they don't mean the things you say they do.

Thank god vocabularies exist.

You are trying to find a way to paint Google "evil".

I speak concepts, and I do not question other people's motivations. The image of Google is painted by none other but Google themselves, with the actions they choose to take. You can't have a cake and eat it too.

You are playing to your audience alone. Actually, the further out there you guys go with the tinfoil hat thing the less credible you are.

Yes, resorting to personal attacks is the best-known sign of having good points.

Comment Re:Bogus headline, flamebait. Shame, EFF. (Score 4, Insightful) 301

Yes, they've put those words in the terms of services just for the fun of it. Because lawyers are such funny persons.

Google was born out of net neutrality, and now that they've grown into a position of power, they suddendly find themselves against it. What specific words they chose to use has only a secondary importance. The decision they've made is political: you can only be in favour or against net neutrality, and they chose to be against. They don't want you to choose what to do with your internet connection. They want to be in control. In geekspeak, they're evil.

Comment Re:Linus management technique works (Score 1) 1501

Saying the things that one thinks is a quality, more so in a world where form is not only getting more important than substance, but it is also becoming antithetical to it. I have an uncomplicated nervous system and I much prefer people telling me directly what they think about me or the things that I do, rather than having to do social reverse-engineering in order to figure out what smiling, polite and necktie-wearing colleagues say when I'm not there.

(And by the way, being able to understand and potentially appreciate jokes is an important trait for social interaction, and the whole LKML thread we're talking about was clearly tongue-in-cheek.)

Comment Re:When you ride at night, (Score 1) 413

50 km/h is still too much in case of fog or blind curves. I'm thinking about the kinds of road where you can expect to find bicycles, not motorways.

You have no idea of the things I've found behind one of those curves: cows, landslides, drugged bikers... once even a wise man who deemed it a good idea to have a kid drive his car on one of those roads that have a stone wall on one side and a chasm on the other.

Comment Re:When you ride at night, (Score 3, Insightful) 413

And no amount of driving skill can protect you from invisible stupid bicyclers.

Actually, it's quite easy, you just have to drive slow enough to be able to brake before hitting anything that is in front of you. That would have avoided most of the accidents I've seen.

Or they did not want to go to jail for 20 years for a no-fault accident.

A no-fault accident is when a biker appears from the side of the road and you can't manage to avoid hitting him. In this case, the biker was hit from behind, so the fault his the driver's, full stop. Moreover, when you have an accident, you don't get to decide whose fault it is. You stay there and help the victim. If you run, you're a criminal, no excuses.

Comment Re:When you ride at night, (Score 1) 413

Or they panicked, which is a thing that happens.

Indeed it happens, and when it happens you go to jail for it, and justly.

I would venture to guess they probably do value human life, just not as much as their freedom, which is not 0.

People who give more value to anything than human life are criminals, what's your point? What if somebody values my life a lot, but just a bit less than taking all my money?

Comment Re:Gratuitous criticism against Oracle (Score 1) 219

AGPLv3 is identical to GPLv3 with the following section added.

13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

How does this violate freedom zero?

Comment Re:Gratuitous criticism against Oracle (Score 1) 219

there are a number of different projects that are going to be affected by this including Debian's package manager, apt

From the list:

Sorry for not checking apt license myself. Anyway... effectivelly relicensing apt to GPL-3 might not be a problem for apt

There's a lot of FUD on that list, too, by people who didn't even know what license BDB was under in the first place. They thought it was under the BSD license, while it was under the Sleepycat license instead, which is a strong copyleft, GPL-like license. Now I'm not saying that changing a license is an easy thing to manage, just that answers like "AGPL kills kittens" are unacceptable.

Comment Re:Gratuitous criticism against Oracle (Score 1) 219

The people who initially created BDB (past tense) now work for Oracle, or have worked with Oracle as long as they've worked on BDB, and they're working there on further development of it.

So Oracle have the past, the present and presumably the future of BDB within them, whether we like it or not.

Comment Re:Gratuitous criticism against Oracle (Score 1) 219

Oracle paid the people who wrote it in order to acquire that software.

That is not even vaguely close to the same thing as developing it themselves, and no amount of wishing will make it so.

That, together with

Oracle is currently paying their wages while they continue to develop the software.

is the same thing as "developing it themselves", and no amount of changing the point of the discussion will make your initial answer any less wrong.

Slashdot Top Deals

You have a tendency to feel you are superior to most computers.