Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Article is COMPLETELY WRONG (Score 1) 50

Red Hat can't make it any clearer than they have -- you must agree to the Developers Terms & Conditions to download or use the RHEL instance, and it is not for usage as a standard system -- development purposes only.

https://developers.redhat.com/... : (emphasis added)

" By participating in the Program and accepting these terms, you represent that you will be using the Red Hat Subscriptions(s) for development purposes only, and Red Hat is relying on your representation as a condition of our providing you access to the Subscription(s). If you use the Red Hat Subscriptions for any other purposes, you are in violation of Red Hat’s Enterprise Agreement set forth below and are required to pay the applicable subscription fees, in addition to any and all other remedies available to Red Hat under applicable law. Examples of such violations include, but are not limited to,

using the services provided under the Program for a production installation,


offering support services to third parties, or

complementing or supplementing third party support services with services received under the Program."

Comment Crash Plan (Score 0) 285

Crash Plan is going to be the closest fit, but if you're planning on having any kind of viable backups without a computer on all the time, that's simply not going to happen -- not without having lengthy gaps in your backups. Install CrashPlan on both your computer and neighbor's, work out the details and use the free software to backup. You get the added benefit of encryption, proper monitoring of any and all file changes, and automated backups of changes without you remembering to update. What it sounds like you're envisioning (just a remotely accessible drive you manually maintain and updated) is a recipe for outdated and incomplete backups. Use an automated tool that monitors for changes and backs up those changes regularly.

Comment Re:Free speech and democracy? (Score 1) 869

This isn't a matter of free speech. This is a matter of intellectual property rights -- confirmed in actuality by the response the author received from Yahoo (Flickr). This means that the DMCA -- The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1996 holds precedence in the takedown process, and Title 17 USC holds precedence for defining copyright and fair use. The author's work is CLEARLY fair-use -- parody. As such, Yahoo's willingness to remove said image is a direct violation of the conditions set out in the DMCA. The author should send Yahoo a notice of unlawful takedown via the same channel they accept DMCA takedown notices (required by law to be posted on their site). Yahoo would have a reasonable period of time to restore the image, or they are immediately liable, and the author can sue, and would win (although Yahoo of course would settle out of court). I encourage the original author to do so.

Slashdot Top Deals

I think there's a world market for about five computers. -- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943

Working...