> Distribute versions with fewer features for free
One additional requirement: don't disable totally necessary functions. I've downloaded software demos that do everything except for the one purpose I got it. If you get a 3D-modeller program (just an example) that does everything but render the model, it's not a useful demo. "Wow, that's a nice wireframe model, wish I could do something with it."
The biggest annoyance, to me, is when I'm trying a demo version to see if the software is worth buying, but the "save" function is disabled. I can't tell if the damned thing works the way I want if I can't save the file & try opening it elsewhere. For all I know, it could pass off some proprietary file format as AVI or something, so when I actually buy it, it doesn't work. Unlikely scenario, but I don't know for sure, so I'm not going to potentially waste that much money to find out. Of course, I could get the full version & try it, but that's illegal.
> if that's all you've got to say, why are you even bothering?
Because you obviously don't believe it, despite its truth, so I had to say it.
> Such a bald statement is patently wrong and you know it.
No, I do not know that at all, because it is not. Yet bald statements follow it your own post.
> there wouldn't be modern universities if there hadn't been monestaries in the middle ages.
You have no idea if that is correct, and I submit that it is entirely wrong and YOU know it. Surely, the Jesuits made a big impact on education, an immeasurable one -- I even went to a Jesuit University. However, there were university-style school setups in Greek times as well. They were much more elite & had very few students there, but it was present & entirely separate from Christianity.
> If you haven't got anything better than this nya nya nyaaaa! stuff, piss off.
If you haven't got anything more enlightened than to say "Waaa, my religion is the only reason you people are alive and is the basis of everything you do," then you can, as you say, "piss off" as well. Under this post, you have proven yourself to be a pro-God troll with very little in the way of rational, cognitive thought.
That is why I said "that's all I've got to say." If I would have left it without that line, you would have accused me of dwelling on a single part of your argument (as you did to another) instead of attacking the whole thing. Damned if you do... etc.
I have nothing against christians in general, but when they attempt to warp history around their beliefs... the extreme arrogance irks me.
For example, your line about U.S. law being based on christianity -- the "founding fathers," for the most part, weren't even christians. You have proven many times over that you are more interested in spreading your religion than spreading truth. It seems you don't even know what the truth is. I guess IHBT or something...
> here's no tolerance at all for non-left opinions on Slashdot.
That is true when those opinions are not based on actual fact. I am very often posting what could be considered right-wing opinions on/. and get modded up (or at least stay at +1). When you act like an ass in presenting them, or make it sound like only you can be right, it is rightfully modded down.
I have heard many left-wingers claim/. censors them too.
> I can understand where honour killings have an ethical treatment
Murder is never honorable, regardless of religion or lack thereof. I say nothing of the (im)morality, "evilness/"goodness," right/wrong of it, but there is no honor in it.
Just because some religion says it is honorable, it does not mean it should be accepted by anyone. Otherwise, someone could just come up with a religion off-the-cuff to rationalize mass-murder of anyone he doesn't like. If "honour killings" are legal on religious grounds, he would be perfectly justified in his actions. (Just because a religion is new or small, it doesn't fall outside freedom of religion... theoretically.)
Or to illustrate your slight disjoint in thinking, his 1-person religion changes doctrine to do away with the barbarity of "honour killing." So he just rapes them instead.
> too set in your ways to accept a shiney new free thought
If you've ever had an idea, chances are pretty darn good that someone else thought of (something like) it about 50 years ago. Age doesn't enter into it anyway, IMO. That, of course, could be my age bias at age 27 talking.
OMG!!!11!! They posted comments to your blog! Wow, that really IS a royal screwing!
Remind me again what the problem is, other than moronic advertising practices? No one got "screwed," according to that post.
If the original EMail said you would get paid, you might have some reason to be pissed, but you play with big companies, you're bound to see some stupid shit happen.
Re:Actually, it does not at all promote filesharin
on
NYT Promotes File Sharing
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Wow, you are so completely wrong that I'm amazed you can feed yourself. Well, maybe you don't...
> For the past years since Napster, filesharing has been used in a sense that refers to sharing copyrighted files without having the copyright holder's permission.
It has been used BY YOU to mean that. Just because you push a word into narrow terms, not everyone does. When I say filesharing, it has nothing to do with copyright, legal, or illegal. It means SHARING FILES, regardless of content. I use KaZaA to download legal, free software when the distribution site is down, slow, etc.
> When people talked about filesharing, they talked about Napster, Kazaa et al.,
Because those are the programs that do the sharing. What the hell else do you expect them to be called?
> nobody gives (or gave) a damn about legal filesharing,
Again, just because YOU view the world so narrowly, don't assume everyone else does as well.
> No doubt this is just one meaning of the word
Which goes contrary to your previous statement that "filesharing" means only "distributing copyrighted material illegally."
2-3 months ago, my company ordered a dozen or so new PCs. Three weeks later we call to see where they are, and they have no record of the order. We place it again, and they offer us two free Laser printers with it to apologize!
They were 1700s... Now I have to wonder if they knew about this flaw before & were trying to unload them on unsuspecting businesses... Guess I can't complain TOO much, since they were free & good-enough quality for my office.
> I let all the people from 200 years ago do all the weeding out of crap--now all I hear is the great music.
No, you hear great music, not the great music. What you are insinuating is that no "great" music has come out in the last 200 years, which is simply not true.
I agree 100% on the "Disney can do what it wants with its own private company" point.
> Freedom of speech also has its limits, like the respect for the dead and their families.
AARGH! Hell no it doesn't have limits; or at least not for the reason you mention! I have the right to publicly make fun of anyone who died in the WTC, insult any military personnel alive or dead -- any person at all, regardless of the status of their brainwaves. RESPECT IS NOT MANDATED BY THE GOVERNMENT! I choose not to do those things out of respect, but to claim that I do not have the right to voice my opinion just because someone might be offended is MORE OFFENSIVE than the opinion itself!
This is a far cry from yelling "Fire!" in a theatre. There is no threat to public safety because I may choose to disrespect someone who happens to be dead at the time. Not "speaking ill of the dead" is a joke. If a person acted like a jerk, I'm not going to call them an angel just because they died. I'll just say -- to myself, out of respect for their family, not because of the law -- "thank goodness I don't have to listen to his crap any more" and move on.
> they donated all the patents to an NPO for relicensing
There is a serious disconnect between your title and the content. Donating something to a NPO is a far cry from open-sourcing it. Relicensing (to me) implies that there may still be a fee to use the patented technology, just that the license money for the patent goes to a NPO. I wonder what the purpose of that organization is.
Isn't it a pain in the arse when someone we don't like does something good? I guess it just goes to show that not all things are Black & White.
Wait, what am I saying?!?! DISNEY IS EVIL!!! There has to be some ulterior motive in this! Hmmmm... Perhaps Disney is saving money by moving to an air launcher. Makes sense, since air is infinitely cheaper than gunpowder (although the compressor is not). Yeah, that must be it...
> "He voted against this. You like this so he must be bad."
Great point. You would think Slashdot users would know this already, since many of us think that those who voted for the USAPATRIOT act, and knew what was in it, are hardly Patriots.
Slashdot Mirror
> Distribute versions with fewer features for free
One additional requirement: don't disable totally necessary functions. I've downloaded software demos that do everything except for the one purpose I got it. If you get a 3D-modeller program (just an example) that does everything but render the model, it's not a useful demo. "Wow, that's a nice wireframe model, wish I could do something with it."
The biggest annoyance, to me, is when I'm trying a demo version to see if the software is worth buying, but the "save" function is disabled. I can't tell if the damned thing works the way I want if I can't save the file & try opening it elsewhere. For all I know, it could pass off some proprietary file format as AVI or something, so when I actually buy it, it doesn't work. Unlikely scenario, but I don't know for sure, so I'm not going to potentially waste that much money to find out. Of course, I could get the full version & try it, but that's illegal.
> if that's all you've got to say, why are you even bothering?
Because you obviously don't believe it, despite its truth, so I had to say it.
> Such a bald statement is patently wrong and you know it.
No, I do not know that at all, because it is not. Yet bald statements follow it your own post.
> there wouldn't be modern universities if there hadn't been monestaries in the middle ages.
You have no idea if that is correct, and I submit that it is entirely wrong and YOU know it. Surely, the Jesuits made a big impact on education, an immeasurable one -- I even went to a Jesuit University. However, there were university-style school setups in Greek times as well. They were much more elite & had very few students there, but it was present & entirely separate from Christianity.
> If you haven't got anything better than this nya nya nyaaaa! stuff, piss off.
If you haven't got anything more enlightened than to say "Waaa, my religion is the only reason you people are alive and is the basis of everything you do," then you can, as you say, "piss off" as well. Under this post, you have proven yourself to be a pro-God troll with very little in the way of rational, cognitive thought.
That is why I said "that's all I've got to say." If I would have left it without that line, you would have accused me of dwelling on a single part of your argument (as you did to another) instead of attacking the whole thing. Damned if you do... etc.
I have nothing against christians in general, but when they attempt to warp history around their beliefs... the extreme arrogance irks me.
For example, your line about U.S. law being based on christianity -- the "founding fathers," for the most part, weren't even christians. You have proven many times over that you are more interested in spreading your religion than spreading truth. It seems you don't even know what the truth is. I guess IHBT or something...
> People really do have a problem admitting their Christian intellectual inheritance.
Yes, BECAUSE IT ISN'T THERE!!! That's all I've got to say on that.
> here's no tolerance at all for non-left opinions on Slashdot.
/. and get modded up (or at least stay at +1). When you act like an ass in presenting them, or make it sound like only you can be right, it is rightfully modded down.
/. censors them too.
That is true when those opinions are not based on actual fact. I am very often posting what could be considered right-wing opinions on
I have heard many left-wingers claim
> I can understand where honour killings have an ethical treatment
Murder is never honorable, regardless of religion or lack thereof. I say nothing of the (im)morality, "evilness/"goodness," right/wrong of it, but there is no honor in it.
Just because some religion says it is honorable, it does not mean it should be accepted by anyone. Otherwise, someone could just come up with a religion off-the-cuff to rationalize mass-murder of anyone he doesn't like. If "honour killings" are legal on religious grounds, he would be perfectly justified in his actions. (Just because a religion is new or small, it doesn't fall outside freedom of religion... theoretically.)
Or to illustrate your slight disjoint in thinking, his 1-person religion changes doctrine to do away with the barbarity of "honour killing." So he just rapes them instead.
> too set in your ways to accept a shiney new free thought
If you've ever had an idea, chances are pretty darn good that someone else thought of (something like) it about 50 years ago. Age doesn't enter into it anyway, IMO. That, of course, could be my age bias at age 27 talking.
> If there were just some way to see how the post would look before submitting it...
There is, it's... ooohh, you so sneaky! I no good with sarcasm.
> they also screwed a bunch of bloggers
OMG!!!11!! They posted comments to your blog! Wow, that really IS a royal screwing!
Remind me again what the problem is, other than moronic advertising practices? No one got "screwed," according to that post.
If the original EMail said you would get paid, you might have some reason to be pissed, but you play with big companies, you're bound to see some stupid shit happen.
Wow, you are so completely wrong that I'm amazed you can feed yourself. Well, maybe you don't...
> For the past years since Napster, filesharing has been used in a sense that refers to sharing copyrighted files without having the copyright holder's permission.
It has been used BY YOU to mean that. Just because you push a word into narrow terms, not everyone does. When I say filesharing, it has nothing to do with copyright, legal, or illegal. It means SHARING FILES, regardless of content. I use KaZaA to download legal, free software when the distribution site is down, slow, etc.
> When people talked about filesharing, they talked about Napster, Kazaa et al.,
Because those are the programs that do the sharing. What the hell else do you expect them to be called?
> nobody gives (or gave) a damn about legal filesharing,
Again, just because YOU view the world so narrowly, don't assume everyone else does as well.
> No doubt this is just one meaning of the word
Which goes contrary to your previous statement that "filesharing" means only "distributing copyrighted material illegally."
> Sun and SGI workstations?
I thought SGI stopped making computers for some reason...?
It all adds up now!
2-3 months ago, my company ordered a dozen or so new PCs. Three weeks later we call to see where they are, and they have no record of the order. We place it again, and they offer us two free Laser printers with it to apologize!
They were 1700s... Now I have to wonder if they knew about this flaw before & were trying to unload them on unsuspecting businesses... Guess I can't complain TOO much, since they were free & good-enough quality for my office.
> I let all the people from 200 years ago do all the weeding out of crap--now all I hear is the great music.
No, you hear great music, not the great music. What you are insinuating is that no "great" music has come out in the last 200 years, which is simply not true.
> No DJ banter or commercials? Wow, radio I could actually stand to listen to (maybe).
Sorry to disappoint you, but the music still sucks. Back to satellite, I guess!
Actually, I use Launchcast at work & am pretty pleased with it. Too bad I can't (within reasonable means) stream it to my car raduo.
> slander/libel. They are two different beasts. [...] figure out which is which
I know! Slander is a device to smooth wood or metal and libels are informational stickers, right?
> Suffice it to say that it was not a work of philosophy or fiction
A dictionary? A Biography? Science textbooks?
> I'm an "original protestant"
Wow, how many hundreds of years old are you?
> I hope Guantanomo has internet access
Internet access? It barely has bathroom access...
> I can think of a few books that have effectively (and possibly for good reason) disappeared from library shelves
If you don't mind, could you be a bit more specific?
I agree 100% on the "Disney can do what it wants with its own private company" point.
> Freedom of speech also has its limits, like the respect for the dead and their families.
AARGH! Hell no it doesn't have limits; or at least not for the reason you mention! I have the right to publicly make fun of anyone who died in the WTC, insult any military personnel alive or dead -- any person at all, regardless of the status of their brainwaves. RESPECT IS NOT MANDATED BY THE GOVERNMENT! I choose not to do those things out of respect, but to claim that I do not have the right to voice my opinion just because someone might be offended is MORE OFFENSIVE than the opinion itself!
This is a far cry from yelling "Fire!" in a theatre. There is no threat to public safety because I may choose to disrespect someone who happens to be dead at the time. Not "speaking ill of the dead" is a joke. If a person acted like a jerk, I'm not going to call them an angel just because they died. I'll just say -- to myself, out of respect for their family, not because of the law -- "thank goodness I don't have to listen to his crap any more" and move on.
> If someone moderates my comment funny, and then someone else moderates it overrated, will my karma go down?
Yes. Some call it "Slashdot Math."
> I'm thinking there's just something about that combination that sounds so wrong.
Is the combination of a large, fiery explosion launching explosives more comforting than (practically? IANAPhysicist) inert air launching them?
> they donated all the patents to an NPO for relicensing
There is a serious disconnect between your title and the content. Donating something to a NPO is a far cry from open-sourcing it. Relicensing (to me) implies that there may still be a fee to use the patented technology, just that the license money for the patent goes to a NPO. I wonder what the purpose of that organization is.
> How would it be that black powder is too dangerous to lift the shells, but OK in the shells themselves?
Because the powder in the shells is not (normally) ignited at ground level.
> We still hate Disney, right?
Isn't it a pain in the arse when someone we don't like does something good? I guess it just goes to show that not all things are Black & White.
Wait, what am I saying?!?! DISNEY IS EVIL!!! There has to be some ulterior motive in this! Hmmmm... Perhaps Disney is saving money by moving to an air launcher. Makes sense, since air is infinitely cheaper than gunpowder (although the compressor is not). Yeah, that must be it...
> My intuition was telling me it would take at least 10 lbs of black powder to launch an average size shell.
;)
Woah, escaped a Darwin there
I think 10 pounds of powder would be enough to launch Marlon Brando!
> "He voted against this. You like this so he must be bad."
Great point. You would think Slashdot users would know this already, since many of us think that those who voted for the USAPATRIOT act, and knew what was in it, are hardly Patriots.