The advertising clause wasn't "non-free" as much as a practical problem that was incompatible with the GPL's ban on additional restrictions. It was largely removed when much popular software switched from the 4-clause original BSD license to the 3-clause or 2-clause version.

The appropriate copyright notice clause remained in 3-clause and 2-clause BSD licenses. This clause is also present in GPLv2 and GPLv3.

While Paramount claims they cancelled Colbert as a cost cutting move, that makes no sense since other late night shows on other networks with smaller audiences continue. They must make some sort of financial sense.

It is widely understood, though not provable, that the move was a bribe to Trump in order to get the merger approved. Trump has had a longstanding dislike of Colbert because of his commentary on Trump as a person and as the President.

When is a hard question. Rationally it should never have blown up this much in the first place (some expansion would be rational, but not like we've seen). Clearly the minds driving this are not rational.

Insanity is notoriously hard to predict. That's why short selling is so risky. The market can clearly remain irrational longer than most people can remain solvent when betting against it.

In the case of BitTorrent, even the fastest Internet connection won't get you a lot of successful peer connections if your ISP blocks all inbound TCP connections.

Such a new ecosystem already has grown, as I understand it. It's called getting Netflix, HBO Max, Paramount+, Disney+/Hulu, Peacock, Prime Video, or Apple TV to accept your pitch and fund it. These take the place of cable television channels in the pre-broadband economy. And there are still a lot more pilot screenplays than budget to produce all of them.

With the decline of third places, particularly since the pandemic and as online shopping has taken over the functions of malls, how do people usually meet people in 2026?

If only I could get my home ISP to add IPv6...

Would it benefit the public to completely do away with the other 1%? How could something like The Amazing Digital Circus have been produced purely on a hobby budget?

How does the producer of a video go about seeding "word of mouth" and getting onto "curated lists"?

Yes, by excluding a lot of viewers who lack an IP address that can accept inbound TCP connections, unless I'm missing something. It also excludes viewers who have an iPhone or iPad and don't have a Mac with which to build and ad-hoc sign an app because Apple has reportedly banned BitTorrent clients from the App Store.

And how might that have been? I might be misremembering, but this was my recollection:

1. Movie studios and TV channels funded production of videos to be viewed by the public. Very few pitches got funded.
2. Movie studios promoted upcoming and newly released movies through television advertising, and TV channels promoted shows to the channel's own viewers.
3. Movies were paywalled, and TV was ad-supported (in the case of broadcast) or behind the combination of ads and a paywall (in the case of cable).

Also, before YouTube, most end-user devices on the Internet had an IP address, even if dynamic, which could accept incoming connections. Nowadays, a lot of Internet subscribers' devices are behind network address translation (NAT), and if you share your IP address with the whole neighborhood, the ISP is unlikely to forward a port to your device.

Under your proposal:
1. How would the producer of a video cover the cost of producing the video before it even reaches BitTorrent?
2. How would a viewer learn of a video that they are likely to enjoy?
3. How would the system work around users who "leech", or view the video without contributing to its decentralized hosting?

Actually, the people who forget that seem to be in the business of marketing and press releases. QC has been the apocalypse that would turn the world on it's head breaking crypto left and right in the next 2 years for at least 10 years now. It still can't do prime factorization better or faster than a sixth grader with a pencil and paper. And the sixth grader won't charge as much.

Perhaps it will be useful one day, but not today. It may well take 100 years. Remember about 3 years ago when the size of quantum computers was going to double overnight? And how it went radio silent shortly after? The problem with QC isn't that it will never get here at all, it's the damned hype machine that promised it would be here now.

It's the same hype machine that told us we would be using crypto currency for all of our everyday transactions by now. The same hype machine that claims AI will replace everyone next year.

That's not how this works. There are a few ways to send an image to the bare display, but HDMI isn't one of them. If you actually look up the item list from TFS you will see that.

You didn't expect them to actually explain how you could manufacture an e-ink panel starting with sand and some chemicals in your kitchen, did you?

But it's not just the multi-billionaires. It's the many more multi-millionaires that produce nothing but wedge themselves into every transaction.

Look at any product that can be bought from an American company or direct from China. That HUGE price difference is how much the American company is skimming off the top.

The copyright statute of Slashdot's home country defines a "copy" as a physical object in which a work is embodied, such as a book, ROM cartridge, or optical disc. The statutory license associated with ownership of a copy of a computer program includes making intermediate copies "as an essential step" in the use of the program. Title 17, United States Code, section 117. Historically, console makers and game publishers have lacked power to revoke this license with respect to a particular copy of a game that isn't online-only. With the end of video game distribution on optical disc, this license becomes revocable, and that's the problem.

It doesn't require nearly as many people working nearly as hard as we have now to provide for everyone.

I'll have to disagree with you on that. What matters for reproducible builds is that the person performing the build has power to set the seed.

Not once the console maker shuts down the platform's reactivation servers.

Or say the publisher wants to publish a multiplayer game where players 2 through 4 can download a limited-functionality version of the game without charge so long as player 1 is a paying licensee and on their mutual contacts list. This resembles the model used by StarCraft spawned installations, single-Pak multiplayer on Game Boy Advance, and DS Download Play on Nintendo DS. I don't think all consoles support this sort of game sharing.