Recent Comments

That looks pretty good, certainly a huge improvement. EXCEPT when I click "dismiss" I get an error message:
* "record not found - table [notification] id [1]"
Similar to the error when modding a comment as spam. Perhaps that's only from a direct comment link?

Now if you could just fix the problem of low readership. Maybe you could spring for an ad on /. telling them |. doesn't have such annoying ads. ;-)

Noted for next time. Thanks for the feedback.

I will not buy a smartphone that does not have an SD card slot. Apple was bad enough charging through the nose for phones, and earlier ipods, based on hard disk size. I would rather buy some chinese knockoff if it comes down to it.

Some things you can do under stories you can't do under direct comment links (like moderation)

Fixed. You should now be able to moderate (both inline with JavaScript enabled or form based with JavaScript disabled) on a comment page.

There's no nice user-summary page that shows your comments, moderation, reply counts, and submissions.

I started making the profile page more summary-like. Example: http://bryan.pipedot.org/summary

Replies are still sent as a link in a bare-bones e-mail.

Fixed. New notification system informs you when someone replies or moderates one of your comments

obviously, parties involved have an interest in holding back LTE-U to make additional profit. instead of just giving in or ignoring them, i think the answer should be that those that oppose have to agree to pay an anti-competitive fine (and not contest the results) if lab testing shows LTE-U to not cause significant interference. the fine would be equivalent to the projected profits of holding back the technology during them time it takes multiple third party labs to do the testing and analysis. if they honestly think it will be a problem then they will pay for the test but if they a just full of it then they will refuse.

...and considering 75% of your posts over at Soylent are being ignored; i'd say you have little support for your way of thinking.

You are missing huge social clues. And again, the simple fact that the GPL's own website dispels what you say...that is all most rational, intelligent people need to move on and ignore you...

...which we are - your message was lost to your bitching days ago :)

good job.

more like real people vote down your childish rants. grow the fuck up you troll

Who Am I? parking scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UAQNetzY2k

What I want is speed.

For example, suppose you need to parallel park on the opposite side of the road. Normally you have to find a place to take a U-turn, then pull up ahead of the spot, then back in, and so on. It's slow and somebody might take your spot. A good robot car should be able to do that in one step, drifting into the spot.

Driving a car usually has very little to do with steering

You must be a TERRIBLE driver...

Nice comment removed, due to crude replies in other posts.

Sorry SJW piece of shit.

Well, I take back the reasonable things I said about you in an earlier comment. Anyone who uses SJW as an insult, is no friend of mine, and I can't give their arguments the benefit of the doubt. You might be right with everything you say here, but you're a jerk, who doesn't understand basic decency.

Not quite what you're asking for, but see:

http://pipedot.org/comment/

Also note the RSS "comment feed" link at the bottom of that page.

Pretty lousy write-up. Doesn't mention current revenue, fundraising targets, what they want to use the money for, etc. Vague statements like "swimming in money" are meaningless and best avoided.

Good sources for the story, with all this info, are available for anyone who looks:

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2859599/firefox-pleads-for-cash-with-in-browser-fundraiser.html

I'm saying they are wrong.

No, that's NOT what you said... You said they were talking about GPLv3, remember? Now that I've throughly discredited that claim, you choose to switch your claim around to something else entirely.

I provided multiple sources for the non-revocability of the GPL. You've provided NO SOURCES for your claim, just your own paranoid delusions based upon very little reading of the law, and an overabundance of willful ignorance.

If the FSF was to point out flaws or errors, such utterances could be used against them in court in a case

Then they would simply keep quiet on the issue. There's no benefit to them lying. Instead, they're saying it because case law backs them up.

So they keep their mouth shut

Except they didn't keep their mouth shut. They weighed-in and specifically said the GPL (v2) is not revocable.

Why do you think the GPL has gone through 3 revisions so far?

I already listed the reasons for GPLv3. Revocablity isn't one of them.

I really don't understand how you think you can argue with me from a position of ignorance

I don't understand how you think you can argue with the legal sources I've cited, from your position of extreme ignorance. No matter how many times I prove you completely and totally wrong on one issue or another, you just ignore it and twist your claims around next time around so you don't have to acknowledge your error, and just pretend you weren't making incorrect, crazy and unsupportable claims a few minutes earlier...

And look, here's yet another source that's right on-the-nose:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-1&id=163

Actually, things have gone backwards in Android land. More and more smartphones are coming WITHOUT microsd card slots. In Android 2.x, a microsd card was necessary for everything. In Android 4.x, the internal storage masquerades as a microsd card, so it's all kinds of hell trying to use your actual microsd card to store apps, app data, and store new files there, the way it seamlessly worked in 2.x. Nothing pisses me off more than telling a program to backup it's setting to microsd card, then having to copy it from internal storage to the actual microsd card, and needing to do the reverse when restoring. Far too much, Android has been going backwards.

This seems to be a result of phone manufacturers wanting to charge through the nose for anyone who wants more than 8GB of internal storage... It's actually difficult to find phones with over 32GB of storage, and a bit difficult to find phones with microsd slots... All too often low-end phones have them (eg. Moto-E), while the more expensive high-end phones do NOT (Moto X), and have less storage space as a result. Meanwhile, a 32GB microsd card costs just $10, far less than the cost of buying a different model of phone with more internal storage space.

What is it with today's fascination with streaming everything? Few weeks ago, I went on a car trip with some friends, and the music in the car was played entirely from smartphones connected to car audio system via bluetooth, streamed from one music service or another. That is, until the signal got bad, and everyone just sat silently, feeling stupid, because nobody had any music files stored locally.

I know this anecdote calls for a "then I saved the day with my SD card full of mp3s" kind of ending, but there isn't one. I didn't get enough sleep the previous night, and was happy I could doze off without their weird music disturbing me. :)

Asking for money after axing the plugin system and messing up the ui so badly that users switch? Geez.

I love the pipedot blue highlight for unread comments. Is it possible to see a list of recent new unread posts perhaps in a table: Article | Comment Title | Comment text

Having had someone try to gauge out one of my eye's I can assure you that this is not warranted. Why are you getting so upset over this?

I'm saying they are wrong.

It is not in their interest, at all, to weaken their case.

If the FSF was to point out flaws or errors, such utterances could be used against them in court in a case
involving the copyrighted works that have been deeded to them. Such utterances, when it comes to cases involving works they own, can be very damaging. So they keep their mouth shut, rectify the situation
as best they can by issuing new versions of licenses.

Why do you think the GPL has gone through 3 revisions so far?

I really don't understand how you think you can argue with me from a position of ignorance though.
All you're doing is arguing "FSF is the authority, they must be right".
Not when they drafted v2. That was before stallman got the 1mill grant even, IIRC.

Perhaps an advantage to having only robot drivers, would be that cars could communicate directly with each other, instead of our language. It would be faster and share far more information than our measly words and glances could. If one could guarantee uninterrupted communication, it could eliminate stop signs: why slow down if you know the exact speed and timing of other approaching vehicles, a slight speed shift and you would weave right through.

I agree with your sentiment, its a little too early to be putting these on the road. There has not been enough background in the field (compared to, say aviation design) to find the ghost-in-the-machine kinks. Great, nothing major has happened so far, but its just a matter of time before we get a story along the lines of "google car makes sudden left for cheaper gas on 4 lane highway - 12 dead." or, "car mistakes other vehicle's racing stripes for road stripes, crashing head-on" :)

There's a bit of a difference between espousing legal theories, and flooding the comments with page after page of irrelevant and/or redundant ranting and raving. That, the occasional bouts of tourettes, and the threats of personal violence, weren't too good either.

Anyone so inclined can change their preferences to show ALL hidden spam comments, but it's a mess.

The incorrect comment count due to entries threads being hidden when the top comments is flagged as spam, has already been reported as a bug number 62.

The GPL's own website talks about the current version, v3

Nope. Here's the archived page from back in 2001, before anybody started working on GPLv3:

https://web.archive.org/web/20011214143230/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty

The GPL's own website has a vested interest in promoting the GPL.

They have a vested interest in spreading accurate information about the GPL.

The GPL's own website is not trained in the law.

Are you seriously claiming the FSF and GNU organization don't have ANY LAWYERS working for them? Several of their high-ranking board members are working lawyers.

Google has duplicated my driving technique. I think that validates my driving as algorithmicly perfect.

Why google is even trying to do this. Driving a car usually has very little to do with steering etc. It's mostly observation and communication. How can a robot with no intelligence can interpret the nonspoken language, is beyond me. After we have robots that can communicate, we can expect them to be reasonable drivers. Until then, just keep them in your own land, google.

while it was likely the politics and other trash that have driven its decline.

I don't think it is that simple. Other trash...can be entertaining now and then. And politics... I don't think politics in general is necessarily a problem. Upholding more or less forgotten journalistic standards (truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability) may provide a fertile ground for controversial, but still levelheaded discussions. But the biased propaganda, which goes as 'politics' on /. poisons every community. It is repulsive for more clear thinking members, but attracts at the same time fanatics and crackpots. Of course, fanatics and crackpots might generate more clicks, so this kind of audience might be favoured by /.'s owners.

Anyways, I like the stories here... though I wish there would be some more. Not that this is a complaint...

Well, quite honestly, I think you are showing signs of paranoia and persecution complex. I actually appreciate some level of gibberish clean up on sites like this. I used to think that no censorship anytime any where on any site was the way to go, but slashdot quickly disabused me of that idea. Quality discussions don't happen by accident, even though some level of trust of the editorial staff is required that they are not removing valid comments to skew the discussion.

Spotify allows you to store your favorite music to play when you are offline. The interface to allow offline access is very simplistic and just a simple button in the App - hardly complicated at all.

That's intel's line, not spengler's.

Some points: The GPL's own website talks about the current version, v3, which rectify many issues with v2. Linux is licensed under v2. Can't be re-licensed because there are so many copyright holders. It's stuck with v2.

The GPL's own website has a vested interest in promoting the GPL.
The GPL's own website is not trained in the law.

>So just to clarify for you again:
Indeed, you wouldn't know who to trust, being of the laity, never having studied law.
It's all greek to you as you are truely ignorant and thus must simply rely on authorities to trust and distill the information for you.

If I were near you I would laugh in you face, and we'd see what happened next.
I think you've been rude to me so maybe there would be a fight.
I'd try to gouge out your eyes with my thumbs in that case.

They were legal arguments about this case that the editor here doesn't want you to read.

They show that spengler can be sued for his action and successfully.
They also show that his license to modify the linux kernel can be rescinded.

Ofcourse the editor here hasn't been through law school so it's all gibberish to him.
The editor here also supports spengeler in his actions to close the stable patch of grsecurity.

How do you feel about the editor keeping this knowlege from you, no matter what settings you change?

Thousands of them. Including music make that hundreds of thousands. What I want is decent access to every tv show, movie and song ever published. I am willing to pay for this. What I currently get is...

It is called a kamikaze lane change. Humans do it to. Perhaps not as often or as unpredictably.

I use fastmail.fm for IMAP email: no adverts, ever. You get what you pay for. Gmail sucks - this is just another reminder of what you get when you want something for free.

When I first saw this story pop up, there was 1 comment attached, but I couldn't view it regardless of the settings I had. I checked back in a couple hours and there were two comments I couldn't see. So I have no idea what those were or why I couldn't see them. Maybe they were auto detected as spam or something?

Mail clients like Thunderbird or mutt can be useful for avoid annoyances like this. They also have the benefit of providing a consistent interface, saving the user from unexpected or unwanted changes in the webmail interface.

Summaries should be reasonably detached and impartial, not puffy & promotional. i.e.:

"the most advanced"
"a powerful new dimension"
"a revolutionary experience"

If you'd like to try resubmitting with a different source that isn't copying Apple's PR, it should be a decent story.

Sorry SJW piece of shit. You didn't go through law school, you don't even know the edges of the law, and you are wrong.

The only handwaving and insults are coming from you. Grow up.

And for supposedly having gone to law school (even graduate?) you have terrible grammar and debate skills. Your way of speaking to others will ensure nobody will ever listen to you, even if you are right. You act like you are 14.

If this is such a real thing, maybe you should have the law office you work at file a lawsuit, if its such a clear cut violation. Oh wait, but its not, and you have no job as a lawyer, do you?

despite your repeated assertions,the GPL's own website says contrary(I bold'ed it, in hopes the heavy letter weight sinks through your thick skull.) Lets see, should i believe a Law Grad (again, no real experience), or the FAQ+more written by the same group that published the licensebefore you were even born....The license you are defending says you are incorrect!

So just to clarify for you again:
GPL website = valid, trustworthy source (ie, the horses mouth,the only one that matters)
You = who?

What above posts?

He's just copy/pasting his comments from other threads, and elsewhere all over the internet, including what look like IRC logs, and generally just arguing with imaginary people about things nobody said. If the missing other posts are the only thing he's said that confuses you, you're doing better than I.

Slashdot is doing this as well with a new type of ad that is located in the same location as traditional stories.

Not always. Try Runbox?

What above posts?

>US law doesn't allow revocation, unless explicitly specified in license, which the GPLv2 does NOT. See sources above.

Yes it does. Licenses are revokable at will. Property law 101, idiot.
The only thing that prevents license revocation is estoppel.
(Usually arising in a contract to license a work, potentially arising from an utterance by the grantor: such as a no-revocation clause in a license document (explicit disclaimer of the right to revoke gives rise to estoppel which you can argue in-front of a court to give the revocation no effect.))

Copyright is alienable by "any operation of law": property, contract, etc. There aren't "special forms" of alienation written into the statute (there didn't need to be).

Here's someone who disagrees with you, first hit on google for the lazy, if you need someone else to listen to (and obviously don't have a casebook nor a treatise handy, because you haven't bought any since you haven't attended a school where you would need them you piece of filth):
"""
>Default Rule When Silent on Revocability
>Most courts hold that simple, non-exclusive licenses with unspecified durations that are silent on revocability are revocable at will. This means that the licensor may terminate the license at any time, with or without cause. Conversely, courts typically hold that simple non-exclusive licenses that are silent on revocability but specify a set duration are non-terminable during the set duration. Results, however, may vary based on applicable state contract law and federal law preemption principles. We find that many people are unaware of these default rules. Because of the lack of absolute clarity on the default rules themselves and the impact other provisions in a license agreement may have on their application, we believe it is important not to remain silent on revocability in a license.
""" --Sidly Austin LLP

And here's some input from the 1976 US Copyright statute, copied from one of my casebooks in my library:
US 1976 Copyright Act. SS 304(c)(6)(A)
"A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilizd under the trms of the grant after its termination, but this privledge does not extnd to th preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrightd work covered by the terminated grant."

IE: Once the permission to modify linux is revoked, no further work on grsecurity may commence: it's over.
(The license of Linux (GPLv2) lacks a no-revocation clause, GPLv3 had to be drafted for a reason (adding one in) (so you could attempt to argue estoppel)) (Licenses are revokable at will barring estoppel)

Sorry SJW piece of shit. You didn't go through law school, you don't even know the edges of the law, and you are wrong. You can believe the FSF all you want; they have an interest in hiding the truth. I'd be happy for your whole edifice to crumble as that would hurt you pro-women's rights, anti-marry-young-girls pieces of filth.

That used to be true.

Now, even if you pay, you are still the product!

And this is why I prefer going with paid hosting....

Spengler announced he is closing grsecurity

No he isn't doing that at all. The summary states this fact quite clearly.

it's ok to distribute copies of his work for a fee, as long as the source code is published isn't it? He is not publishing the source code. He is keeping it closed, except to people who pay

The GPLv2 has NEVER required source code be "published". It only requires that any recipient of "object code" also be able to receive the source code, and you "may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients" meaning they could redistribute it further.

This is in the FAQ for anyone who spent a few seconds to look for it:
* http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

"the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL."

"The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if and when he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, when that is what he chooses."

"You can charge people a fee to get a copy from you. You can't require people to pay you when they get a copy from someone else."

etc. etc.

licenses can be revoked at any time by the rights holder

The GPL is not revocable:
* http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163
* http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty

There's no 'no-revocation' clause. This is why the GPLv3 had to be drafted.

US law doesn't allow revocation, unless explicitly specified in license, which the GPLv2 does NOT. See sources above.

The FSF explained why they needed GPLv3 (patent deals, Tivoization, DRM, etc.), and NOWHERE did they list revocation as being an issue:
* https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

You ever wonder why the FSF requires all copyrights to be assigned to them in their projects.

No, because they've explained why... "successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors."
* https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

the rights holders never intended that someone may close a derivative work

Your repeated assertions of bad faith are both incredibly lazy and utterly insane, as the GPLv2 explicitly allows modifications & derivatives, explicitly allows you to "charge a fee", and nowhere claims you must make your modified version PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. Stop pretending to be a lawyer who has any clue what he is talking about, when you're clearly unwilling to do the slightest work to investigate the validity of your own unsupported claims. I won't be bothering, again.

At least you managed to avoid blaming Debian or women for any of this...

>BTW: show me the part in the GPL that states that you must make the source code available to anyone?

Please keep up. Read the above posts.

Short story: If the GPLv2 is a license then we simply revoke spenglers permission to modify the linux source code. There's no 'no-revocation' clause. This is why the GPLv3 had to be drafted. Licenses arise from property law, read up on them. They are not a product of copyright law as all lay techies suppose.

If you argue the GPLv2 is a contract, then, as you may note, the GPLv2 is not a fully integrated document (notice there's no integration clause?), then extrinsic evidence comes in to show that the rightsholders never intended source code of derivative works to be closed in this manner. Usage in trade and course of dealings of the party come in.

If it matters, this case is distinguishable from RedHat etc as RedHat is simply failing to distribute binaries to anyone not contracting with them, whereas it does publish source code (and for a reason). Here Spengler wills to close the source code to a derivative work.
And: if it matters: RedHat's approach has not been tested in court.

You probably don't get to argue contract, as has been stated earlier, so a plaintiff just revokes the license and you're done with grsecurity: you want to close it, it will be closed, completely.

You ever wonder why the FSF requires all copyrights to be assigned to them in their projects. Any one of the 10's of 1000s of linux contributors can be a plaintiff, they all have standing.