Re:What happens when you're successful?
on
Creative Commons
·
· Score: 1
> Think of the Trolltech business model. QT is > GPL'd for noncommercial use, but if you want a > different license you have to pay. Remember, a > license is not a copyright. You can dual > license your own IP.
You mean non-*proprietary* use. Commercial companies can use TrollTech's libraries as long as they release the source code to any library that links to it.
I personally find the options need a bit of work and focus on what each combination is compatible with and incompatible with.
But consider this. It's possible to convert energy from one form to another. Wouldn't it be possible to convert the excess heat into, say, electrical energy?
The Surgeon General has issued a warning on cable television. Watching television nonstop without ever leaving the room during commercials will lead to severe kidney, urinary, and intestinal problems. Just say no to cable, for the sake of your kidneys.
> It's very simple. Introduce some sort of > Draconian legislation, not because you expect > it to be passed, but to soften the electorate > for a "compromise," which is what you really > wanted in the first place.
So I guess the alternative Draconian bill would be to completely eliminate copyright law. That would cause the special interests to seek the compromise we wanted (get rid of the DMCA only).
This isn't funny. It's an actual solution for companies in a bind. People who can afford it can use the time to be with their families or develop other personal interests. People who can't afford it can do contracting on those days to make up the difference. These people essentially have a salary secured way of doing contracting without worrying about a total salary loss if it takes time to get the next contract.
The key problem with this approach is that once done, the employees may not want to get things back to the way they were.
Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 1
Interesting.
So that basically means that if you used EULAed software the way you would use any copyright work under the default license, you might not be able to be prosecuted because you may not have agreed to the license.
This isn't a problem with the GPL since if you don't accept the GPL, you accept the default copyright, which is what the GPL allows you to do anyway.
Trying to find "the one true customization that's good for everyone" is like trying to find "the one perfect car that's good for everyone" or like trying to find "the one perfect hammer that could be used as all tools". It can't happen because people have different needs.
Take voice recognition, for instance. Someone who can't see would consider this to be an essential part of the OS. For me and many users, it would get in the way because every feature comes with an associated cost that affects usability (witness the "mysterious words that suddenly appeared in OfficeXP documents). You can't satisfy both groups, so it needs to be configurable.
Take GUI interfaces also. GUIs are great and they do make many things easier, but they also have an associated tradeoff in user resources and usability. Don't believe me? In the early days of DOS, it was possible to set up a good "pick a number" interace that allowed novice users to go go to wordperfect, go to lotus, backup files, and other basic things. This interface was completely customized to their needs (much like point of sale cash register GUIs). The users didn't need to know much. They never asked about "right clicking this" or "double clicking that" or "I accidentally dragged this over this other thing and now it's gone" and you never had to worry about clicking on the exact screen co-ordinate of the mouse. Yes, GUIs may allow you to do more, but they do so at the cost of usability because they are so flexible at doing things that users don't want to be done -- especially by accident.
This is not to say that all customization is good. Most older TVs have a knob or two at their back with mysterious sounding names like buzz or dialectic factor. How much buzz is too much? Would a little more dialectic factor help my reception or would it cause my TV to double as a sun lamp? Only the factory makers know.
GUI designers need to take the time to make sure that the most useful and common customizations are easy to find and understand. The rarely useful, but still important customizations should be accessible, but clearly marked as advanced. Hardcore tuning options (like the "buzz" knobs) should be hidden in configuration files or command line switches so people don't accidentally run into them or so they don't get confused.
Besides this, customizations should be visible enough that the user should know they are there, but hard enough to reach so that they don't select them by accident. It should also be possible to revert the changes so that you don't get stuck.
Java and C# are as different as Python and Perl. Java is a minimal language that does not tend to add features that could be solved by libraries or conventions. C# is a maximal language that tries to incorporate all language idioms in the language. For instance: * C# has attributes. Java has external XML manafests. * C# has event types. Java has Event classes * C# has for loop iterators encoded in the language. Java has Iterator classes * C# has resource allocation blocks (where resources are automatically disposed of when you leave the block). Java takes care of this by convention. * C# has many ways to access the underlying OS transparently. Java has native methods. (Native methods are good enough to wrap OS system calls. Take a look at Eclipse's SWT.)
The JVM and CLR continue this minimalistic versus maximalistic trend. From what I've read, next version of the CLR will likely include closures, templates, and other functional language goodies natively in the VM via special instructions, so the difference between the JVM and the CLR will only increase with time.
Getting a Java supporter to admit to liking C# (or vice versa) is like getting getting a Python programmer to admit to liking Perl (or vice versa). It does happen, but it's the exception not the rule. Both languages have different mindsets.
Because of this, neither language will die.
The JVM, OTOH, might have a limitted life because the CLR's instructors are more or less a superset of the JVM's instructions. Few people look at the Java or C# VM output so there's a lot less fanatacism where this is concerned as long as "100% pure Java" code work 100% of the time on the CLR. It's a tall order that involves all of Java's base libraries being recompiled for the CLR, but I'd be willing to bet money that some enterprising company out there ans some open source programmers out there are working on this as we speak.
One day in the not-so-distant-future..... Everything will be a vending machine: Television, Roads, Your own computer, printers, car radio, your car.
If that's true, then it brings a new meaning to Microsoft's famous phrase, "to cut off the air supply of your competition".
Company #1: What do you mean you've cut off our electricity, air, internet access access, and air? We paid our bills!
Megasoft customer service: We didn't recieve your payment. When did you pay?
Company #1: April 1.
Megasoft customer service: Ah, that was when the April 1st Passport virus shut down most of the internet nodes from our soon-to-be-competitors. Don't worry. We'll clear that up some time next week.
Company #1: What do you mean next week! We only have enough air for 1 day!
Megasoft customer service: Then I suggest you leave LA until we clear this up.
Company #1: But you've cut off all our car access and there's no way we'll make it out on bicycle or foot in time and even if we made it, there's no way we could pay your toll booths since you cut our tool access too.
Megasoft customer service: Just a second. It seems that you didn't pay your phone either. I'll have to cut you off. Good luck and thank you for calling Megasoft customer service.
Someone should make a Parody Reply Ad series. The parody ads could also be called "We have the way out," and describe NT as an expensive trap. "No wonder NT makes you feel boxed in. It increasingly ties you to an inflexible Microsoft-only system. It requires you to pay for expensive team of constantly paged MSCEs. It makes you struggle daily with a server environment that's more complex and non-Microsoft specific than ever," one ad can read.
Of course Open Source on the desktop is Toast. It's delicious and it goes with everything from fun stuff (toast and jam, toast and peanut butter) to more serious stuff with a lot more meat (sandwhiches of all kinds). It's great on it's own, but it's flexible enough to meet many needs.
> CLI == Command Line Interface | Command Line Interpreter > wtf is wrong with these people, reusing existing acronyms?
What does the "World Tennis Federation" have to do with anything? That's how most of the non-internet world (i.e. the majority of people) interpret WTF.
Or does WTF mean the famous "Wisconsin Test Facility" which has been around long before the internet or even arpanet was created, and I believe longer than the "World Tennis Federation".
BTW, by this reasoning, CLI mean "Certified Legal Investigator" not "Command Line Interface". What's wrong with these people that can't reuse existing acronyms? ;-);-);-)
You forgot to provide references to the "Version 3.0 is the charm", so here's one: http://www.stokely.com/lighter.side/version. number s.html
Strangely enough, it was written a few years ago, but it does seem to pretty accurately describe the evolution of Windows: Version 1: (a.k.a. Windows 1, yes it existed) "We're praying that you'll find it more functional than, say, a computer virus" Version 2: (a.k.a. Windows 2) "it's really not what the customer needs yet, but we're working on it." Version 3 (a.k.a. Windows 3): "Most of the customers are really happy with this." Version 4 (a.k.a. Windows 95 and NT4): "More features. It's doubled in size now, by the way, and you'll need to get more memory and a faster processor" Version 5 (a.k.a. Windows 98 and 2000): "We really need to go on to a new product, but we have an installed base out there to protect." Version 6 (a.k.a. Windows XP and ME): "we added a few flashy cosmetic features so we could justify the major upgrade number"
It's even more than cultural work. Scientific work can be lost. Just because something is unimportant now, doesn't mean that it won't be in the future.
Take the case of the Aloutte satellite that was launched in 1967.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/8434/essay. htm It collected tons of information about the ionosphere and stored that information on now obsolette tape. At the time, the information was processed and condensed and placed in an archive.
There are tonnes and tonnes of these tapes. Twenty years later, historical information on the o-zone layer became important. Since the original Aloutte researchers weren't looking for o-zone data, they never bothered to analyze that data. The only way to do that is to go to the original tapes.
The problem is, only a few machines can read these tapes and since the tape readers are *extremely* slow by todays standards, it will take years to transfer all that information to CD. What's worse is that some of the tapes are already worn out, so a good deal of information will be lost.
Just imagine what would have happened if the ancient greeks were so advanced that they stored all their information on CDs. We'd never get out of the dark ages, because people lost interest in preserving knowledge while Rome was crumbling.
All of Aristotle, Euclid, and other scientist's work would be on CDs that no-one knew how to read. No-one would even know what the CDs were for. They'd get as much respect as AOL CD, being used as frisbees, placemats, decorations, or just thrown in the trash.
There's an interesting quote of the day at the bottom of the SlashDot page that, co-incidentally, relates to the article -- "Lieberman's Law: Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens"
Just because a company is based in a poor country like India, doesn't mean that it's a sweatshop. Wipro programmers are not that much cheaper than, say, Canadian programmers. Times have changed. As companies in non-western countries start to gain reputation and skills, they become more popular, and thus can afford to demand more. That raises their standard of living and the standard of living of people in their country.
Personally, I think it's great if people can find work they like in their own country. Why should you have to move to some place like North America or Europe or some parts of east asia to get a decent job?
The main reason for the split, is the widget set dependence of GNOME and KDE. Until this issue is resolved, deeper interoperability issues won't likely be resolved.
You *should* be able to use Qt write a complete GNOME application that obeys GNOMEs theming rules, uses Bonobo, GConf and other GNOME technologies.
You *should* be able to use Gtk+ write a complete KDE application that obeys KDE's theming rules, uses KParts, DCOP and other KDE technologies.
Yes, it may be *easier* to write KDE applications with Qt, and GNOME applications with Gtk+, each desktop/platform shouldn't be *tied* to these widget sets.
That's not the way it works now. At the moment, I believe that GNOME's technologies (at least the one's in GNOME 2) are more decoupled from the widget set than KDE's. For instance, it's possible to write a Qt application that uses GConf2, Orbit2, GStreamer, and Bonobo2 without linking in any Gtk+. If you *really* work at it, you should also be able to integrate with GNOME's accessibility framework by hooking Qt components to the appropriate ATK+ options. That's a fair chunk of GNOME already. But there are many other GNOME features that Qt applications can't take advantage of.
I remember hearing that there was some controversy in the 1930s (or so) when a presidential candidate was interviewed by a reporter. The reporter, who was a supporter of the other candidate, decided to sabotage this candidate by quoting this candidate word for word, complete with "uhhhh"s, "welllll, let me thinks", silent pauses, yawns, cracking knuckles, etc. He was made to look like an incompetent fool. He couldn't deny that he said or did all those things, but he complained bitterly that it was unfair. That made him look a whiny incompetent fool that hand something to hide.
Meanwhile, the when the reporter interviewed the candidate he supported, he wrote a beautifully airbrushed interview that made him look like a sharp faultless visionary.
Businesses are correct. Laws the prevent opt out theft (you gave the information to one company *in confidence*) does raise costs and hurt consumers (if you don't count the personal theft).
Anti-slavery laws also raises costs and hurts "consumers" (if you ignore slaves as being consumers).
Just because something helps the country economically doesn't mean it should be done. The ends do not justify the means.
Psychologists and psychiatrists formally define substance dependence as a disorder characterized by criteria that include spending a great deal of time using the substance; using it more often than one intends; thinking about reducing use or making repeated unsuccessful efforts to reduce use; giving up important social, family or occupational activities to use it; and reporting withdrawal symptoms when one stops using it.
Okay, suppose Joe is in an poor famine-ridden country where food is extremely scarce. Let's go through the above definition:
"spending a great deal of time using the substance" -- Joe spends a great deal of time trying to find food and eating it, otherwise he'd starve.
"using it more often than one intends" -- Joe has better things to do than hunt for food all day, but "he has to." He's hungry!
"thinking about reducing use or making repeated unsuccessful efforts to reduce use" He can't stop hunting for food. He'll die if it does.
"living up important social, family or occupational activities to use it" eating takes top priority over everything. It's every man for himself
"reporting withdrawal symptoms when one stops using it" -- Definitely. He faints and shivers uncontrollable when he doesn't eat
Is Joe a food addict? By that definition he is. Let's bring Joe to a bountiful country where food is the easiest thing possible to get. Joe doesn't spend much time thinking about food, has a rich social life, and can control what he eats better than most of his neighbours. Is Joe and addict here? By that definition he definitely isn't.
What changed? The environment. Was Joe *really* a food addict in the famine-ridden country?
Some very important things are missing from this definition.
The second law is a straightforward law of physics with the consequence that, in a ****in a closed system***, you can't finish any real physical process with as much useful energy as you had to start with -- some is always wasted. This means that a perpetual motion machine is impossible ****for a closed system****.
However, this device does not work as a closed system. It interacts with the outside environment. It accepts heat and light from the outside environment. Theoretically, it is possible for the device to convert heat and possibly solar energy into mechanical or electrical energy. Solar cells do it all the time.
Windows 1.0 (Who says Microsoft doesn't have a sense of humour?)
Windows 2.0 (Used by early versions of Word and Adobe)
Windows 3.1 for Workgroups
WindowsME
WindowsXP
WindowsCE (and it's combinations)
Slashdot Mirror
> Think of the Trolltech business model. QT is
> GPL'd for noncommercial use, but if you want a
> different license you have to pay. Remember, a
> license is not a copyright. You can dual
> license your own IP.
You mean non-*proprietary* use. Commercial companies can use TrollTech's libraries as long as they release the source code to any library that links to it.
I personally find the options need a bit of work and focus on what each combination is compatible with and incompatible with.
But consider this. It's possible to convert energy from one form to another. Wouldn't it be possible to convert the excess heat into, say, electrical energy?
The Surgeon General has issued a warning on cable television. Watching television nonstop without ever leaving the room during commercials will lead to severe kidney, urinary, and intestinal problems. Just say no to cable, for the sake of your kidneys.
> It's very simple. Introduce some sort of
> Draconian legislation, not because you expect
> it to be passed, but to soften the electorate
> for a "compromise," which is what you really
> wanted in the first place.
So I guess the alternative Draconian bill would be to completely eliminate copyright law. That would cause the special interests to seek the compromise we wanted (get rid of the DMCA only).
This isn't funny. It's an actual solution for companies in a bind. People who can afford it can use the time to be with their families or develop other personal interests. People who can't afford it can do contracting on those days to make up the difference. These people essentially have a salary secured way of doing contracting without worrying about a total salary loss if it takes time to get the next contract.
The key problem with this approach is that once done, the employees may not want to get things back to the way they were.
Interesting.
So that basically means that if you used EULAed software the way you would use any copyright work under the default license, you might not be able to be prosecuted because you may not have agreed to the license.
This isn't a problem with the GPL since if you don't accept the GPL, you accept the default copyright, which is what the GPL allows you to do anyway.
Trying to find "the one true customization that's good for everyone" is like trying to find "the one perfect car that's good for everyone" or like trying to find "the one perfect hammer that could be used as all tools". It can't happen because people have different needs.
Take voice recognition, for instance. Someone who can't see would consider this to be an essential part of the OS. For me and many users, it would get in the way because every feature comes with an associated cost that affects usability (witness the "mysterious words that suddenly appeared in OfficeXP documents). You can't satisfy both groups, so it needs to be configurable.
Take GUI interfaces also. GUIs are great and they do make many things easier, but they also have an associated tradeoff in user resources and usability. Don't believe me? In the early days of DOS, it was possible to set up a good "pick a number" interace that allowed novice users to go go to wordperfect, go to lotus, backup files, and other basic things. This interface was completely customized to their needs (much like point of sale cash register GUIs). The users didn't need to know much. They never asked about "right clicking this" or "double clicking that" or "I accidentally dragged this over this other thing and now it's gone" and you never had to worry about clicking on the exact screen co-ordinate of the mouse. Yes, GUIs may allow you to do more, but they do so at the cost of usability because they are so flexible at doing things that users don't want to be done -- especially by accident.
This is not to say that all customization is good. Most older TVs have a knob or two at their back with mysterious sounding names like buzz or dialectic factor. How much buzz is too much? Would a little more dialectic factor help my reception or would it cause my TV to double as a sun lamp? Only the factory makers know.
GUI designers need to take the time to make sure that the most useful and common customizations are easy to find and understand. The rarely useful, but still important customizations should be accessible, but clearly marked as advanced. Hardcore tuning options (like the "buzz" knobs) should be hidden in configuration files or command line switches so people don't accidentally run into them or so they don't get confused.
Besides this, customizations should be visible enough that the user should know they are there, but hard enough to reach so that they don't select them by accident. It should also be possible to revert the changes so that you don't get stuck.
Any good book on usability will cover this.
I suppose you mean something like Python's AnyGUI:s .php
http://anygui.sourceforge.net/screenshot
The good news is that while it's possible to port it to Perl, you don't have to if you're willing to wait for Parrot.
But that doesn't explain restricting the LGPL.
Java and C# are as different as Python and Perl. Java is a minimal language that does not tend to add features that could be solved by libraries or conventions. C# is a maximal language that tries to incorporate all language idioms in the language. For instance:
* C# has attributes. Java has external XML manafests.
* C# has event types. Java has Event classes
* C# has for loop iterators encoded in the language. Java has Iterator classes
* C# has resource allocation blocks (where resources are automatically disposed of when you leave the block). Java takes care of this by convention.
* C# has many ways to access the underlying OS transparently. Java has native methods. (Native methods are good enough to wrap OS system calls. Take a look at Eclipse's SWT.)
The JVM and CLR continue this minimalistic versus maximalistic trend. From what I've read, next version of the CLR will likely include closures, templates, and other functional language goodies natively in the VM via special instructions, so the difference between the JVM and the CLR will only increase with time.
Getting a Java supporter to admit to liking C# (or vice versa) is like getting getting a Python programmer to admit to liking Perl (or vice versa). It does happen, but it's the exception not the rule. Both languages have different mindsets.
Because of this, neither language will die.
The JVM, OTOH, might have a limitted life because the CLR's instructors are more or less a superset of the JVM's instructions. Few people look at the Java or C# VM output so there's a lot less fanatacism where this is concerned as long as "100% pure Java" code work 100% of the time on the CLR. It's a tall order that involves all of Java's base libraries being recompiled for the CLR, but I'd be willing to bet money that some enterprising company out there ans some open source programmers out there are working on this as we speak.
One day in the not-so-distant-future..... Everything will be a vending machine: Television, Roads, Your own computer, printers, car radio, your car.
If that's true, then it brings a new meaning to Microsoft's famous phrase, "to cut off the air supply of your competition".
Company #1: What do you mean you've cut off our electricity, air, internet access access, and air? We paid our bills!
Megasoft customer service: We didn't recieve your payment. When did you pay?
Company #1: April 1.
Megasoft customer service: Ah, that was when the April 1st Passport virus shut down most of the internet nodes from our soon-to-be-competitors. Don't worry. We'll clear that up some time next week.
Company #1: What do you mean next week! We only have enough air for 1 day!
Megasoft customer service: Then I suggest you leave LA until we clear this up.
Company #1: But you've cut off all our car access and there's no way we'll make it out on bicycle or foot in time and even if we made it, there's no way we could pay your toll booths since you cut our tool access too.
Megasoft customer service: Just a second. It seems that you didn't pay your phone either. I'll have to cut you off. Good luck and thank you for calling Megasoft customer service.
] ] a Legion of Angelic Lawyers
]
] If that's not an oxymoron...
Hell's Angels.;-)
Someone should make a Parody Reply Ad series. The parody ads could also be called "We have the way out," and describe NT as an expensive trap. "No wonder NT makes you feel boxed in. It increasingly ties you to an inflexible Microsoft-only system. It requires you to pay for expensive team of constantly paged MSCEs. It makes you struggle daily with a server environment that's more complex and non-Microsoft specific than ever," one ad can read.
Have fun with the parodies!
Of course Open Source on the desktop is Toast. It's delicious and it goes with everything from fun stuff (toast and jam, toast and peanut butter) to more serious stuff with a lot more meat (sandwhiches of all kinds). It's great on it's own, but it's flexible enough to meet many needs.
Any truly good desktop *should* be toast.;-)
> CLI == Command Line Interface | Command Line Interpreter
;-) ;-)
> wtf is wrong with these people, reusing existing acronyms?
What does the "World Tennis Federation" have to do with anything? That's how most of the non-internet world (i.e. the majority of people) interpret WTF.
Or does WTF mean the famous "Wisconsin Test Facility" which has been around long before the internet or even arpanet was created, and I believe longer than the "World Tennis Federation".
BTW, by this reasoning, CLI mean "Certified Legal Investigator" not "Command Line Interface". What's wrong with these people that can't reuse existing acronyms?
;-)
You forgot to provide references to the "Version 3.0 is the charm", so here's one:. number s.html
http://www.stokely.com/lighter.side/version
Strangely enough, it was written a few years ago, but it does seem to pretty accurately describe the evolution of Windows:
Version 1: (a.k.a. Windows 1, yes it existed) "We're praying that you'll find it more functional than, say, a computer virus"
Version 2: (a.k.a. Windows 2) "it's really not what the customer needs yet, but we're working on it."
Version 3 (a.k.a. Windows 3): "Most of the customers are really happy with this."
Version 4 (a.k.a. Windows 95 and NT4): "More features. It's doubled in size now, by the way, and you'll need to get more memory and a faster processor"
Version 5 (a.k.a. Windows 98 and 2000): "We really need to go on to a new product, but we have an installed base out there to protect."
Version 6 (a.k.a. Windows XP and ME): "we added a few flashy cosmetic features so we could justify the major upgrade number"
It's even more than cultural work. Scientific work can be lost. Just because something is unimportant now, doesn't mean that it won't be in the future.
. htm
Take the case of the Aloutte satellite that was launched in 1967.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/8434/essay
It collected tons of information about the ionosphere and stored that information on now obsolette tape. At the time, the information was processed and condensed and placed in an archive.
There are tonnes and tonnes of these tapes. Twenty years later, historical information on the o-zone layer became important. Since the original Aloutte researchers weren't looking for o-zone data, they never bothered to analyze that data. The only way to do that is to go to the original tapes.
The problem is, only a few machines can read these tapes and since the tape readers are *extremely* slow by todays standards, it will take years to transfer all that information to CD. What's worse is that some of the tapes are already worn out, so a good deal of information will be lost.
Just imagine what would have happened if the ancient greeks were so advanced that they stored all their information on CDs. We'd never get out of the dark ages, because people lost interest in preserving knowledge while Rome was crumbling.
All of Aristotle, Euclid, and other scientist's work would be on CDs that no-one knew how to read. No-one would even know what the CDs were for. They'd get as much respect as AOL CD, being used as frisbees, placemats, decorations, or just thrown in the trash.
There's an interesting quote of the day at the bottom of the SlashDot page that, co-incidentally, relates to the article -- "Lieberman's Law: Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens"
Just because a company is based in a poor country like India, doesn't mean that it's a sweatshop. Wipro programmers are not that much cheaper than, say, Canadian programmers. Times have changed. As companies in non-western countries start to gain reputation and skills, they become more popular, and thus can afford to demand more. That raises their standard of living and the standard of living of people in their country.
Personally, I think it's great if people can find work they like in their own country. Why should you have to move to some place like North America or Europe or some parts of east asia to get a decent job?
The main reason for the split, is the widget set dependence of GNOME and KDE. Until this issue is resolved, deeper interoperability issues won't likely be resolved.
You *should* be able to use Qt write a complete GNOME application that obeys GNOMEs theming rules, uses Bonobo, GConf and other GNOME technologies.
You *should* be able to use Gtk+ write a complete KDE application that obeys KDE's theming rules, uses KParts, DCOP and other KDE technologies.
Yes, it may be *easier* to write KDE applications with Qt, and GNOME applications with Gtk+, each desktop/platform shouldn't be *tied* to these widget sets.
That's not the way it works now. At the moment, I believe that GNOME's technologies (at least the one's in GNOME 2) are more decoupled from the widget set than KDE's. For instance, it's possible to write a Qt application that uses GConf2, Orbit2, GStreamer, and Bonobo2 without linking in any Gtk+. If you *really* work at it, you should also be able to integrate with GNOME's accessibility framework by hooking Qt components to the appropriate ATK+ options. That's a fair chunk of GNOME already. But there are many other GNOME features that Qt applications can't take advantage of.
I remember hearing that there was some controversy in the 1930s (or so) when a presidential candidate was interviewed by a reporter. The reporter, who was a supporter of the other candidate, decided to sabotage this candidate by quoting this candidate word for word, complete with "uhhhh"s, "welllll, let me thinks", silent pauses, yawns, cracking knuckles, etc. He was made to look like an incompetent fool. He couldn't deny that he said or did all those things, but he complained bitterly that it was unfair. That made him look a whiny incompetent fool that hand something to hide.
Meanwhile, the when the reporter interviewed the candidate he supported, he wrote a beautifully airbrushed interview that made him look like a sharp faultless visionary.
Businesses are correct. Laws the prevent opt out theft (you gave the information to one company *in confidence*) does raise costs and hurt consumers (if you don't count the personal theft).
Anti-slavery laws also raises costs and hurts "consumers" (if you ignore slaves as being consumers).
Just because something helps the country economically doesn't mean it should be done. The ends do not justify the means.
Okay, suppose Joe is in an poor famine-ridden country where food is extremely scarce. Let's go through the above definition:
Is Joe a food addict? By that definition he is. Let's bring Joe to a bountiful country where food is the easiest thing possible to get. Joe doesn't spend much time thinking about food, has a rich social life, and can control what he eats better than most of his neighbours. Is Joe and addict here? By that definition he definitely isn't.
What changed? The environment. Was Joe *really* a food addict in the famine-ridden country?
Some very important things are missing from this definition.
The second law is a straightforward law of physics with the consequence that, in a ****in a closed system***, you can't finish any real physical process with as much useful energy as you had to start with -- some is always wasted. This means that a perpetual motion machine is impossible ****for a closed system****.
However, this device does not work as a closed system. It interacts with the outside environment. It accepts heat and light from the outside environment. Theoretically, it is possible for the device to convert heat and possibly solar energy into mechanical or electrical energy. Solar cells do it all the time.
You forgot:
Windows 1.0 (Who says Microsoft doesn't have a sense of humour?)
Windows 2.0 (Used by early versions of Word and Adobe)
Windows 3.1 for Workgroups
WindowsME
WindowsXP
WindowsCE (and it's combinations)