I tested it with Cyanogenmod's stock browser customized with an iPhone user-agent, and it also works fine. It seems like Google is trying to coerce "eligible users" into using the Google Play app, but won't prevent others from accessing the site.
I can confirm that this is the corpus. I can also confirm that, even though the emails are all from mid-to-senior management, the writing style is very sloppy.
> What happens when say a company like Comcast owns a stake in a company like Netflix and conspire to extort a competitor like Hulu (asking for exorbitant amounts of cash for speed).
One of the best purchases that I have ever made is the Kinesis Advantage keyboard.[1] In fairness, I was tempted to return it shortly after purchasing, but opted to give it one full week of use before making my decision. It took a couple days to become comfortable using it, and now I can't think of myself using another keyboard. It's designed for optimal physical placement of ctrl, alt, delete, backspace, and spacebar, among other keys.
> FeedSnap's goal is simple: to provide a reliable, capable, and actively maintained FeedBurner replacement for your beloved RSS feed.
In keeping with that goal, is there any chance that you will open source the work you've done under a GPLv3 license? Perhaps the largest problem is that every service claims to be "reliable, capable, and actively maintained" until it isn't.
Would you mind expanding upon why you presumably prefer GPLv2 over v3? Additionally, if you prefer the MIT/BSD licensing model, why not choose Apache v2?
Apache is fine, too (though there aren't any patents involved so it has no real advantage). Apache v2, BSD, MIT, are all in the same open spirit - Apache is just more explicit about what it gives away.
It's important to understand that when FSF talks about "freedom" they explicitly mean keeping the users free - not the developers. As a developer, I'm personally biased towards being free to other developers, and I think GPL (v2 and esp. v3) are very much pro-user at the cost of being anti-developer.
> It's important to understand that when FSF talks about "freedom" they explicitly mean keeping the users free - not the developers. As a developer, I'm personally biased towards being free to other developers, and I think GPL (v2 and esp. v3) are very much pro-user at the cost of being anti-developer.
I don't think that's what the FSF means when they talk about freedom. Freedom is about keeping everyone free--developers and users alike. Copyleft licenses ensure that all derivative works be subject to the same licensing terms as the original work. It's a way to protect the self-perpetuating nature of free software that more permissive licenses fail to achieve.
You can estimate the likelihood that a particular sentence is spam by calculating the log sum of n-gram probabilities of sub-sequences in a sentence. These probabilities are obtained from a sufficiently general training set, such as Google's n-gram viewer[1]. You can estimate the probability of a particular sequence of words by summing the log probabilities of each n-gram within that sequence. Using a trigram language model (n = 3), you could estimate the likelihood as follows:
Sentence = "This sentence is semantically and syntactically valid."
where START and STOP are special symbols that aid in determining the proximity of a word to the beginning and end of a sentence.
If your training set fails to sufficiently generalize, you could use Bayesian inference to estimate the likelihood that the sentence is spam. Under this framework, you'd be calculating the posterior probability of the sentence being spam given the observed sequence of n-grams, which combines (i) the inherent likelihood that any sequence of words is spam and (ii) the compatibility of an observed sequence with (i), which is proportional to the impact it has on (i).
Note this is exactly how a smart spammer would generate text (sampling from a language model, built on a public ally available data set like google ngrams or Wikipedia). If you wanted to catch someone doing this, you're much better off using your own corpus to generate a language model, as a spammer would have to scrape all your data to reconstruct the same thing.
Then, run the model over your data and start playing whack-a-mole (and refining the model).
It depends on the context. When combined with other subjective pronouns to form the subject of a verb, "I" is correct (as in "You and I are commenting on this topic"). However, when combined with other objective pronouns to form the object of a verb/preposition, you should use "me" (as in "Others are commenting on this topic along with you and me").[1]
If I had to guess, it might be because, while philosophically more "pure", I believe GPL is a less pragmatic license if the goal is getting your software more widely used.
GPLv3 patent licensing clause was created as a copy/fork of the clause from Apache 2.0 license, and then had an added statement about patent license agreements.
