Yeah. I get the feeling that the only reason for this 3.0 thing is because of mass obsession over release dates and numbers. And not just slahsdotters. It's pretty sad. In all the arguments for and against a Gnome 3.0 I've never seen anyone, anywhere, describe a feature that they wanted to see in Gnome that couldn't be implemented in the 2.x series.
This announcement just seems like an appeasement for the people who want new and shiny without committing to doing the things that a 2.x -> 3.x transition would usually imply. I bet the biggest change will be a new icon theme.
And while I'm here I'd also like to rant about the whole OSX thing. It doesn't matter how much that OS changes, they'll keep calling it OSX until their marketing department decides that it's not cool anymore.
I'm one of the biggest GPL zealots around here, and RMS is high on my list of respected people, but come on. There are whole medical labs dedicated to fighting TB and AIDS in southern Africa that wouldn't exist without the Bill&Melinda foundation. How is that hurting anything?
First of all, before he outed himself he didn't have those banners and links to Democrats Abroad, among others. And his political commentary was much shorter than it is now, and only concerned itself with various polls and their methodology. It was only in the following years that he clearly let it be known whose side he is on when it comes to Republicans vs Democrats.
Second of all, if you read what I said carefully you will see that I was talking about his impartiality between Democratic contestants during the Democratic primaries. I never actually claimed he was impartial when it came to Republicans vs Democrats.
Exactly! Those cowards just sat out a bill which they were against involving immigration. The bill basically goes over the head of our point system which judges a potential immigrant impartially, based on their skills and instead gives whoever is in charge of immigration at the time way too much power to pick and choose, based on their predilections, who comes in and who doesn't. Similar to how it was in first half of the century when 'Great White North' referred to more than just snow. This bill will have serious consequences for many people and families. The Liberals were completely against it but, because it might have triggered an election, they slink off during the vote and let it through.
If they can't stand up for their beliefs for something as important to Canada as immigration, then no way do they have the guts to make a big deal out of copyright reform.
1. He's willing to let the states decide if they have gay marriage.
2. He's okay with civil unions.
3. He's against constitutional amendments outlawing gay marriage.
These are similar to, but still more permitting, than McCain's views. Please do a better job at reviewing the candidate positions.
I also find him very objective and non-biased, but I think he strives for that. His style really leaves one with the feeling that he's just an impartial observer who doesn't care one way or the other.
A few days ago there was one line on his page that hinted at who he had preferred for the Democrat nominee (after Obama had already won) and it struck me that through all these months of coverage I previously had no indication of who he was going for.
Too bad those numbers didn't call it for Kerry. The only point that wasn't a big issue in '04 is number 5. So who knows what will happen. Also, you forgot one:
One could say the same thing for many of the other extra features that you find in a phone. Why is GPS so important on this? Why is an accelerometer so important on this? Why is a bash shell so important on this? But Apple didn't skimp on those, just the camera. Which doesn't seem to make sense. Lots of people take pictures and don't feel like carrying two gadgets around. A good camera is now a must on any phone I buy. Oh well.
Well maybe inept is the wrong word to use. How about this:
All that technology and they can't use replay to correct the mistakes of human refs.
Also, your analogy is bad. The players aren't expected to make good plays all the time. Refs are expected to make the right call all the time. That's their job. Anything less and it's not a fair game. Fans are sick and tired of the outcomes of games being decided by people who aren't even playing. And that's what happens when a ref screws up; they help determine who wins.
But fine, refs are hard working, brilliant human beings. But they're still not good enough. Why should a fair game be sacrificed just because refs have limited sensors and time resolution? Time to modernize the game, not just the broadcasts.
The conspiracy theorist in me sometimes believes that the sole purpose of that show was to inundate people with the term 'Big Brother' just so that when the UK really did become a big brother state there would be no shock value in calling it so.
Radical leftist on podium: Big Brother is watching you, man!
Passive sheople: Hey, I like that show. I'll go watch it now.
I'd say the effects of Moore's law are still going strong and hardware is improving steadily. It's just that instead of faster chips, the hardware improvements come in the form of smaller and more efficient. So we are reaping the rewards not in faster and more powerful, but in cheaper, smaller, better battery life, etc. Of course, the result is still the same for MS; like you say, they incorrectly thought that CPUs would be faster by now.
Which makes me think of another theory as the cause for this phenomenon. People are satisfied with existing software. I think the majority of people would be ok if operating systems and major applications stayed exactly the same as they are. So as technology gets better the only thing about a computer that should change is the hardware. But since it's already good enough to run existing software, then it should just get cheaper and more reliable. I think this is what consumers expect nowadays, not the hardware treadmill of the past.
Well, I don't feel like deciphering the exact context of the assertion (by reading TFA of course), but in a way, yeah, 95 was a high point. I remember all the excitement people had when 95 was about to come out. Long lines, news reporters hyping it up. When, since then, has a new Windows release generated so much genuine excitement? They were rock stars back then.
Now a Windows release is greeted with a 'thanks, but no thanks'. Yeah, I'd look back with longing at '95 too if I were them.
I'm guessing the pun is from the fact that the word 'adobe' means some kind of mud-based brick or structure? If so, then the translated pun is just as good (or bad), as adobe means the same thing in english.
I'm not claiming that the creativity, the creation of the original work, is a non-scarce good. Just that subsequent copies of it are.
As for proposals. State sponsorship is one possible method. In my country (Canada) government grants are available for artists. I'm a scientist and the final result of my work is a publication. I don't get paid every time someone buys the journal my articles show up in, I get paid (mostly through government grants) for doing the research and writing about it in the first place. Which is why all my articles are available for free on arxiv.org.
But the government isn't the only way. If my favourite artist stated that they weren't going to make their next book/album until they got a certain amount of money to do it, it's likely that I would give them some. Thus paying them to actually do the work, not paying them for a valueless copy. I'm sure there are other ways to do it.
Someone will probably come in and point out what's wrong with these, and all other alternative proposals out there. But it doesn't matter. Just because someone has done something creative does not give them the power to attach a value to an infinitely reproducible copy that has no trade value.
And I admit that "paying" for a copy of a work is also a way to get artists money in exchange for their creative output after the fact, I just wouldn't consider it trading money for a product, I'd call it donating money to support an artist.
It's easy to see this in the logical (and hopefully soon, prevalent) way when one talks about the scarce vs non-scarce goods.
I've given up thinking or caring or trying to explain to others whether or not illegal downloading hurts authors. Now I just point out how stupid it is to trade a scarce good, like money or food, for a non-scarce one, like a digital reproduction. It just doesn't make any kind of mathematical or economical sense.
If a person wants to give their favourite author some money, fine. But call it what it is: a donation, not a trade.
The iRex has a Wacom tablet screen. The cheap, screenless Wacoms that you connect to your computer cost about $200 by themselves. $700 may be too much, but the device is in a higher class than the Kindle.
If your project is only good at catering for users, it will eventually die.
If your software only attracts developers, it might well live forever. So there is a class of users that bring nothing to free software: "linux ready for the desktop" objectively must be considered by specifically ignoring those users with no talent, literary, artistic or technical, because they are only a drain on resources.
Heh, how long until someone claims that it's this kind of arrogance that keeps normal people from using Linux? Man, I get tired of that one. Anyway. I agree with you, with the exception that those users who don't or can't develop might still donate money.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. I get the feeling that the only reason for this 3.0 thing is because of mass obsession over release dates and numbers. And not just slahsdotters. It's pretty sad. In all the arguments for and against a Gnome 3.0 I've never seen anyone, anywhere, describe a feature that they wanted to see in Gnome that couldn't be implemented in the 2.x series.
This announcement just seems like an appeasement for the people who want new and shiny without committing to doing the things that a 2.x -> 3.x transition would usually imply. I bet the biggest change will be a new icon theme.
And while I'm here I'd also like to rant about the whole OSX thing. It doesn't matter how much that OS changes, they'll keep calling it OSX until their marketing department decides that it's not cool anymore.
I'm one of the biggest GPL zealots around here, and RMS is high on my list of respected people, but come on. There are whole medical labs dedicated to fighting TB and AIDS in southern Africa that wouldn't exist without the Bill&Melinda foundation. How is that hurting anything?
I concur. As soon as I can get reliable and reasonably high resolution games on the net the tv is going out the window.
..and we're about to have an Outside Context Problem
You should read more Canadian history. For a long time immigration was strictly for Europeans only.
First of all, before he outed himself he didn't have those banners and links to Democrats Abroad, among others. And his political commentary was much shorter than it is now, and only concerned itself with various polls and their methodology. It was only in the following years that he clearly let it be known whose side he is on when it comes to Republicans vs Democrats.
Second of all, if you read what I said carefully you will see that I was talking about his impartiality between Democratic contestants during the Democratic primaries. I never actually claimed he was impartial when it came to Republicans vs Democrats.
Exactly! Those cowards just sat out a bill which they were against involving immigration. The bill basically goes over the head of our point system which judges a potential immigrant impartially, based on their skills and instead gives whoever is in charge of immigration at the time way too much power to pick and choose, based on their predilections, who comes in and who doesn't. Similar to how it was in first half of the century when 'Great White North' referred to more than just snow. This bill will have serious consequences for many people and families. The Liberals were completely against it but, because it might have triggered an election, they slink off during the vote and let it through.
If they can't stand up for their beliefs for something as important to Canada as immigration, then no way do they have the guts to make a big deal out of copyright reform.
1. He's willing to let the states decide if they have gay marriage.
2. He's okay with civil unions.
3. He's against constitutional amendments outlawing gay marriage.
These are similar to, but still more permitting, than McCain's views. Please do a better job at reviewing the candidate positions.
I also find him very objective and non-biased, but I think he strives for that. His style really leaves one with the feeling that he's just an impartial observer who doesn't care one way or the other.
A few days ago there was one line on his page that hinted at who he had preferred for the Democrat nominee (after Obama had already won) and it struck me that through all these months of coverage I previously had no indication of who he was going for.
Too bad those numbers didn't call it for Kerry. The only point that wasn't a big issue in '04 is number 5. So who knows what will happen. Also, you forgot one:
6. Teh ghey marriage!
why is a good camera so important on this?
One could say the same thing for many of the other extra features that you find in a phone. Why is GPS so important on this? Why is an accelerometer so important on this? Why is a bash shell so important on this? But Apple didn't skimp on those, just the camera. Which doesn't seem to make sense. Lots of people take pictures and don't feel like carrying two gadgets around. A good camera is now a must on any phone I buy. Oh well.
Are you saying that Barack Obama Sr (shown here with Jr) is mostly arabic? You have a very broad definition of that term.
Amazing how any nonsense can be posted around here and get modded informative.
Well maybe inept is the wrong word to use. How about this:
All that technology and they can't use replay to correct the mistakes of human refs.
Also, your analogy is bad. The players aren't expected to make good plays all the time. Refs are expected to make the right call all the time. That's their job. Anything less and it's not a fair game. Fans are sick and tired of the outcomes of games being decided by people who aren't even playing. And that's what happens when a ref screws up; they help determine who wins.
But fine, refs are hard working, brilliant human beings. But they're still not good enough. Why should a fair game be sacrificed just because refs have limited sensors and time resolution? Time to modernize the game, not just the broadcasts.
Obviously it has gotten to a point where it is becomes almost as bad as the oil companies. Just raking in profits and not using it for anything.
:)
You call this modest allocation of hard earned profits nothing?!!?
the porn industry is the one pushing the development of computing!
:)
There, fixed.
What, you haven't been watching a lot of CG porn recently? I'm not alone.. am I?
The conspiracy theorist in me sometimes believes that the sole purpose of that show was to inundate people with the term 'Big Brother' just so that when the UK really did become a big brother state there would be no shock value in calling it so.
Radical leftist on podium: Big Brother is watching you, man!
Passive sheople: Hey, I like that show. I'll go watch it now.
I'd say the effects of Moore's law are still going strong and hardware is improving steadily. It's just that instead of faster chips, the hardware improvements come in the form of smaller and more efficient. So we are reaping the rewards not in faster and more powerful, but in cheaper, smaller, better battery life, etc. Of course, the result is still the same for MS; like you say, they incorrectly thought that CPUs would be faster by now.
Which makes me think of another theory as the cause for this phenomenon. People are satisfied with existing software. I think the majority of people would be ok if operating systems and major applications stayed exactly the same as they are. So as technology gets better the only thing about a computer that should change is the hardware. But since it's already good enough to run existing software, then it should just get cheaper and more reliable. I think this is what consumers expect nowadays, not the hardware treadmill of the past.
Well, I don't feel like deciphering the exact context of the assertion (by reading TFA of course), but in a way, yeah, 95 was a high point. I remember all the excitement people had when 95 was about to come out. Long lines, news reporters hyping it up. When, since then, has a new Windows release generated so much genuine excitement? They were rock stars back then.
Now a Windows release is greeted with a 'thanks, but no thanks'. Yeah, I'd look back with longing at '95 too if I were them.
I'm guessing the pun is from the fact that the word 'adobe' means some kind of mud-based brick or structure? If so, then the translated pun is just as good (or bad), as adobe means the same thing in english.
I'm not claiming that the creativity, the creation of the original work, is a non-scarce good. Just that subsequent copies of it are.
As for proposals. State sponsorship is one possible method. In my country (Canada) government grants are available for artists. I'm a scientist and the final result of my work is a publication. I don't get paid every time someone buys the journal my articles show up in, I get paid (mostly through government grants) for doing the research and writing about it in the first place. Which is why all my articles are available for free on arxiv.org.
But the government isn't the only way. If my favourite artist stated that they weren't going to make their next book/album until they got a certain amount of money to do it, it's likely that I would give them some. Thus paying them to actually do the work, not paying them for a valueless copy. I'm sure there are other ways to do it.
Someone will probably come in and point out what's wrong with these, and all other alternative proposals out there. But it doesn't matter. Just because someone has done something creative does not give them the power to attach a value to an infinitely reproducible copy that has no trade value.
And I admit that "paying" for a copy of a work is also a way to get artists money in exchange for their creative output after the fact, I just wouldn't consider it trading money for a product, I'd call it donating money to support an artist.
It's easy to see this in the logical (and hopefully soon, prevalent) way when one talks about the scarce vs non-scarce goods.
I've given up thinking or caring or trying to explain to others whether or not illegal downloading hurts authors. Now I just point out how stupid it is to trade a scarce good, like money or food, for a non-scarce one, like a digital reproduction. It just doesn't make any kind of mathematical or economical sense.
If a person wants to give their favourite author some money, fine. But call it what it is: a donation, not a trade.
The iRex has a Wacom tablet screen. The cheap, screenless Wacoms that you connect to your computer cost about $200 by themselves. $700 may be too much, but the device is in a higher class than the Kindle.
Yes. Kernel 2.4
oblig. wiki link
You should just learn how to read. That line was a paraphrase of other people's complaints that I often hear and don't agree with.
If your project is only good at catering for users, it will eventually die.
If your software only attracts developers, it might well live forever. So there is a class of users that bring nothing to free software: "linux ready for the desktop" objectively must be considered by specifically ignoring those users with no talent, literary, artistic or technical, because they are only a drain on resources.
Heh, how long until someone claims that it's this kind of arrogance that keeps normal people from using Linux? Man, I get tired of that one. Anyway. I agree with you, with the exception that those users who don't or can't develop might still donate money.