MIT Media Lab Defaults To Free and Open Source Software
That's not what the article says at all. They've removed the extra approval required to open source projects. They are open sourcing everything by default. It's up to the project whether they release it as proprietary or open source.
Say I want to use a start button.. I hit the windows key, I type the first three characters of the thing I want, maybe I need to hit up arrow once and I hit enter. Five key presses and I can run anything. What is the counterpart on OSX?
Cmd+Space, type first three characters of the thing you want, hit enter.
Did it really? Or is it a case of ATT knowing they are about to lose business and they are in a panic to stop it. Another case of "we can't compete let's take them to court". Sad really. From what I understand Louisville should win this hands down. It's not like Google is going to go fuck up ATT poles. Besides they are only allowed where they are because of Louisville. If it wasn't for their approval ATT wouldn't have been allowed to lay the poles.
Read the article. AT&T isn't trying to block Google from using their poles.
You've got to wonder if the submitter even read the article it links to. That summary is remarkably misleading.
Regardless of what you think about AT&T generally, it's pretty clear they are in the right on this one. The city overstepped its authority.
l. Fibre is all well and good, but the last mile into everyones home is still going to have to be a cable connection for higher-than-dsl speed, and cable companies aren't just going to give it to you. The other alternative, to spread out into existing markets, means asking homeowners and landlords to undertake expensive retrofits for cat6 and fibre drops.
That may be true on average, but I've got fiber to my house and I get 940 Mbps+ up and down from AT&T GigaPower for the last year.
Based on the Symantec quote, it seems more like the NSA wants to audit the anti-virus before it gets used on government systems. So, more likely, Avast isn't asked for their source because they're not getting greenlit to be installed.
Bingo. There are certain gov organizations that you can't sell into unless you let them audit your source. It's not just the US either. Also required for certain Russian certifications (for example).
And then we could have competition on the search-engine front again, because Google search frankly sucks.
Not sure what planet you are living on, but oddly enough, you are free to use all those other search engines that are better than Google.
Assuming that the routers require signed firmware images (or will in the near future), the law should require that everything needed to load new images into the router by the user should be made available (including any signing keys).
That entirely misses the point of why the FCC is wanting to lock down the firmware...
I agree when they close down people who are making a profit from piracy. I believe that is all I need to say.
In other words, you don't really believe that the law is the law and you should have it changed rather than breaking it when you don't think it should apply to you.
It makes no difference the quality of the taxi's that are in existence. If the laws aren't making taxi's you like, then, again.. Why is this so hard to understand... HAVE THE LAW CHANGED. It doesn't give anyone carte blanche to break the law.
Given the prevailing stances on
Quite frankly the majority of Slashdot seems to be completely down with disregarding all of contract law, which is sort of hilarious given the fervor with which they go after GPL violators with.
Don't forget that copyright law should be ignored (ie., music, movies, etc.) unless it is to enforce GPL
"Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows." -- Robert G. Ingersoll