support old formats like MP3 or MPEG
This isn't 1997. Technology has way surpassed needing to highly compress things to the extent that they have little fidelity.
The point of using open formats is to preserve things as best as possible, without chance of having a licence revoked or the licensing company folding. Transcoding from MP3 to the next generation's favourite format would greatly reduce quality and OGG has options for both lossy and lossless compression where needed. MP3 LAME VBR is quite decent but fewer devices support it than support OGG which greatly exceeds the quality with minimal filesize increase. I haven't got a single device that can't play OGG and have all my music in
If they would simply the crappy CC licenses....then more people would be able to use their content.
The alternative is returning to the old method of finding a contact for the content which normally involves a whois lookup and several phone calls, then hoping the entity is big enough to have licence terms drafted.
Having licenses named things like BY-NC-ND means you simply cannot use the content without doing research.
Ten seconds at Creative Commons Licences should be adequate research
Even then, it can still be impossible to use content because of morass of words in the mess that Lessig made the decision to create instead of just making something simple.
Morass of words!? CreativeCommons' most complicated licence weighs in at 87 lines. Microsoft's most basic licence for Win 10 Retail weighs in at 191 lines and only covers one product
We had to stop distributing CC learning materials since our lawyers couldn't guarantee that we wouldn't get sued since BY-SA isn't clear on what in the hell it requires.
Firstly, no lawyer, ever, can guarantee you won't get sued - regardless of which licencing scheme you are using. Secondly, if your lawyers can't decipher a BY-SA, then you need better lawyers. Thirdly, if it was true that the CC licence was an unreasonable risk, you knew who the creator was (BY) and could have simply contacted them for clarification or an alternative licence - as your lawyers should have.
Overall, you appear to be attempting a FUD campaign (or are a giant pansy). I publish and redistribute plenty of CC works without much difficulty in the interpretation of, or fear of, the associated words or pictures.
US Military were too late to the game.
On the 4th of January I watched the announcement of a seed gun.
You can see the video here.
Besides the platform itself, the things that made Slashdot great were:
1. The general community
> This appears to have shrunk possible due to an ageing user base.
2. The feature articles
> Great journalism is more often being done by bloggers and freelancers. Slashdot seems to overlook this.
3. Evangelists and experts
> With the loss of most of the original team plus less contributions from leaders like NYCL, there is little information garnered from the commentary.
I also think that there is a larger divide between content creator and consumer as more and more people are becoming full time creators and not just hobbyists. As such, we have consumers that may read comments and occasionally submit a (low quality) comment, and creators, who are elsewhere blogging or freelancing.
Slashdot needs to make a move into original content and consider profit-sharing ad revenue with contributors.
Slashdot's current model is to drive readers to other sites (who just so happen to be more on point) but in the time it takes to read a paragraph, they attempt to divert your attention to the shitty two-dollar store that has far too many options of a small range and little information.
Independent contractors should able to set independent rates.
They can. If it is a rate that Uber agrees with, Uber will award a contract. If not, they will use another contractor.
Where Uber is going wrong is forbidding drivers (contractors) supplying services to other service operators. THIS is what truly prevents a contractor from setting their own rate.
They can modify it all they want but it is no longer Ubuntu. It has a different kernel, different drivers, and handles virtualisation very differently.
If a user had scripts running on Ubuntu and then migrated over to the new service provider, those scripts would likely stop working. These companies are using the Ubuntu name because the experience will be similar, however, there will be confusion where the user expects the experience to be identical.
Better would be to call it "Based on Ubuntu" or "Ubuntu-esque" or "VPSbuntu".
What if they removed all of the Ubuntu names on the exterior, the webpage, the file name, etc? Ubuntu still has their name all over the interior, no?
The other line moves faster.