But apart from the data being presented, the style in which it's presented, and the user's interaction with that data, there's basically very little wrong?
Incorrect. It is far more efficient to adapt your bodies to survive the environment.
Then why do people build houses? Why were things like the furnace and the air conditioner invented? Heck, why was clothing invented?
Because you lacked the technology to provide a more efficient solution. GP's argument stands. It is less efficient to build a home that to have no need of it. I can't see how parent post is "insightful", it merely poses several questions and makes a false statement using the word "only" that should be trivially dismissed. We don't "only live on this planet because we have developed many ways of altering the environment." We live here because this is where life could evolve. Life had to evolve in this environment long before being able to change it.
Even if you believe that by some magic creation myth a god altered the environment for life to begin existence, you're argument would still be wrong. The energy expended in the creation of the environment to suit life would be greater than simply finding another planet that already had the environment you needed (a trivial task given an omnipotent omnipresent deity).
Do not assume that the way we've been doing things is the right way. That path leads to extinction.
Right, and then just like in Tejas / Texas, they'll marry the local people, then have a revolt and join the uh...union? Chinese search engine Baidu is interested in expanding internationally. The trans-revolutionary name of Detroit, Michigan will be: Meng Tan tian, Daihatsu -- The former means something like flat, smooth, quiet, peaceful in Chinese; The latter is a Japanese automaker (note that the 'first' and 'last' names get swapped around).
The manufacturing we once relied on Detroit's for is now done overseas. Nevada could face similar problems when gambling and sex work is legalized. Since they're positioned between California and the rest of the nation, Nevada would be logistically natural home for call-centers. Their temporary revolutionary name will be Devadas -- Indian for "servant of the gods".
Thanks for that helpful comparison---without it, I would have had no clue how long 71 seconds actually is.
Really? I didn't find it helpful at all. I had to look it up myself. 71 seconds is about 81.5 miles (~ 131.3 km) long. Given approximately 69 miles (or 111 km) per degree of longitude or latitude (longitudinal degrees vary widely, covering less distance approaching the poles).
I'm still confused about their thermal coefficient as related the distance or how exactly that relates to 8oz of water microwaved -- Seems it would depend on at least the pressure, starting temperature, destination temperature, and the types of surfaces experiencing the friction (assuming unlubricated seconds).
Oh my, would you just look at the time? I'd rather not lose my place, thanks.
I've always been puzzled when people say what the "Founders intended".
That's quite odd, because they've literally written volumes on the subject. Try visiting a library instead of puzzling next time.
The Founders lived in a time when it took days to get from one populated area to another, on horseback.
And we live in a time when business is international, and it takes days to get from one side of the country to another by car.
They were wealthy land owners upset with being pushed around by a monarchy thousands of miles away.
And we're considered a wealthy civilization upset with being pushed around by banks and the federal government from thousands of miles away.
They did a fine job in creating a new country, but they created it for the times they were in and the technology they had.
Oh how easy it is for you deluded youths to ignore anything they actually believed. Do you think they intended to create a nation to last just for the week-end? Even the Declaration of Independence alludes to a historical perspective of the machinations that rule humanity, key among them universal truths of freedom (in that freedom and pursuit of happiness, liberty, and life is the natural state sans government). You're either a joker or a fool, and what you wrote isn't funny.
There's nothing sacred about the laws or structure they enacted. Undoubtedly some of the motivation behind a structure with states having power was due to the realities of a sparsely populated country and frontier, and recent bad experiences with a monarchy. There's certainly nothing magical about state and local government.
Agreed, there's nothing magical about cybernetics. The laws of nature which govern the flow of information indicate that awareness of events is greater the close to the events and wide the network is. Further up the chain the knowledge must be compressed because these entities are fewer, and yet their brains are the same size. It is not sacred, but obvious and wise to decouple the power structure to maximize freedom and agency of the citizen.
Both can be just as wasteful and abusive as federal government, especially, as we've seen, when it comes to personal liberties and civil rights.
One is demonstrably far more wasteful than the other. Not a single terrorist stopped from a nation wide spying program -- Tell me, fool, do you think a state or local government pressure international corporations into such a raw deal? Do you think that your city council will declare war on intangible ideas and pour trillions into it? I suggest you go back to school -- Or, since yours has done so poorly at educating you, simply use the Internet we built for you to become less ignorant.
Now stop for a moment and think: Why don't we have any people who are doctors in every field of study?
Interestingly, long ago the volume of knowledge was such that a single human could easily contain all of it -- or certainly enough to be considered an expert in everything. As your society progresses the amount of knowledge and information out paces your capability to know everything, and so you must specialize your knowledge and skills to continue advancement. It's a double edged sword: Science has no true divisions; The universe is unified. Overspecialization can leave you just as blind, but you must make do with the brains you've come into sentience with... for now.
Who is more of a hillbilly? The one who still thinks that human heads can store and apply infinite knowledge, or the one who realizes the relatively new field of computer science plus at least one programming language has a greater cognitive load than learning another culture's language? In the Age of Information where nearly every device has computational capacity, is it more advantageous to learn to speak multiple human languages or learn to communicate with machines? I guess it would depend on whether one plans on being a troglodyte or not.
Tell me, human, do you think it is more efficient to learn multiple human languages, or to standardize on one? Before you answer, consider that if you want to be a programmer you practically must learn English first. However, if you already know English...
Nice try NSA. You've already shown your hand. We know you can love kittens on any website in the world, it's obvious that you've snuggled this poor commenter's post to spread your delightful agenda.
Security is for the little people. Corporations, small, medium, and large? Not so much.
Your comment makes no sense.
Oh, AC... you poor thing. I understand your confusion: Words don't make sense without context.
If you are a "little person" then you might think all this talk about "national security" is about protecting you and your interests, ensuring your safety. That's wrong. Only you are responsible for protecting yourself. Congress has ruled the police have no obligation to protect you, they are enforcers of the law against those who break it (if they're "little people").
If you are a corporation then "security" means ensuring existence of your socio-economic status, and influence over politics, despite the will of the people. That's what "national security" is, except under that label they don't have to worry about pesky FOIA requests exposing such actions.
You don't have "national safety" you have "Security theater". It's not just harmless bureaucratic waste, it's actually preparation to keep you from organizing any activism enough to change anything. Just like the stuff they did under COINTELPRO; Thus, their ability to maintain the status quo is "secure". Any real threat to life is pretty much ignored unless it's not really a big deal and can be heavily monetized by the state -- See: War on Drugs. The important thing to note is that the electronic spying apparatus has been in operation for decades.PRISM's spying was in place pre-9/11 and yet failed to protect us; There's no evidence it's ever protected us, since that's not what it was meant to do. The powers that be have no real interest in your safety, just that you are "secured". They're actually hoping for another disaster. Four hundred times more folks die every year from heart disease and accidents than a 9/11 scale attack, yet we still drive the kids to get a happy meal -- Compared to nearly any other risk, even falling down in the bath or lightning, the terrorist threat is pathetically small. The scaremongering threat narrative is only needed to push through more draconian legislation, like the PATRIOT Act, by manufacturing your consent.
'Stable sometimes' is remarkable in the absence of hardware MFGs support. It hasn't really been that long since hardware MFGs have gotten behind support for open source drivers. Now that a AAA game developer / publisher / marketplace has come to the free-side of the source, things are looking bright indeed.
Folks are waking up to the reality that it might not be in the best interest of their business strategy rely too heavily on another company for their success. Especially not after MS's reception of W8, it's marketplace, and their shady hardware platform dealings (not informing platform partners, no more pre-release for MSDN access, etc). Even if they fix the issues folks are becoming a bit gun-shy now, rightly so. Why needlessly tie yourself to a ship that might sink or make you walk the plank when it's easy to diversify and get free community support and better PR, thus customer loyalty essentially for free? Starting a new software project (esp. game) it costs nothing extra to ensure it runs on all the major platforms. So, the choice is: Hey, we can make it just work with one OS/platform, or for the same effort, pick up the market share of all the other major OSs too by selecting a cross platform engine / toolkit / compiler at the outset.
Since the olden days the hobbyist / tinkerers / free thinkers could be looked to for indication as to the future market place. PC hobbyists all over online digital distribution and 'social networking' in the BBS era, boom the Internet exploded when exposed more broadly. The demoscene led the way showing nifty tricks in software rasterizing, and later in hardware rasterizing, and later in shaders, before mainstream developers had public products. The homebrew hobbyist gamedev scene has been espousing "cross platform or bust" long before AAA studios realized exclusivity was dumb financially, and now the "indie devs" are echoing sentiments such as "games are art, art shouldn't have planned obsolescence DRM death sentences" and such...
It goes back farther than this: The Renaissance heralded the industrial revolution. Stories about adventure and exploration yielded (re)discovery of America, laymen interest in design progress, space, and technology predicted your nuclear and space ages. It's no mistake the 'wacky' robotic fascination of your late 20th century indicated a largely robotic workforce with huge mechanical organisms for continuous production. Ideas seeded in your 'far-fetched' early adopter culture are converging even now to lead you to the next of your great advancements. Take a look around and see.
I'm jaded too, but my outlook is: Well, finally they got their heads out of that recursive anus -- Wonder how long it'll take AAA and MPAA producers to realize DRM is hurting business, and after that to realize Copyright is artificial scarcity lunacy too: You can ask for enough up front, 'give away', that which you've already been paid you to create, and your competition can't compete with 'free'. Lots of little devs are starting to test the waters of that route: less churn, more stability, free publicity / advertising, more freedom and creativity, zero piracy, simply continue working to continue earning money... just like any other labor market. Just look how long it took those dumb apes to figure out folks buy hardware, not drivers. Everyone alive now will probably be about dead by the time that other stuff happens at this rate, but it'll happen eventually. The market forces of economy work. Just look at the doomed printing press industry. I'm just amazed how long you've clung to the horrible concept of idea monopolies -- those will soon be eradicated as a matter of civil rights: People can sue for patent infringement if a machine thinks about an algorithm? Oh, for kracken's sake.
Sure would be nice if by some strange twist of fate I'm still around when all that comes to pass -- Nothing is more r
The BSD approach is "Here is something nice I made - have it and do what you like, hope you have fun!"
The GPL approach is "Here is something nice I made - you can use it, but if you you have to let me play with you stuff. I don't care that your thing might be vastly better or more complicated than mine, if you're using my stuff you sure better make sure I can use everything you make."
Well, "more free" is subjective. However, you got a key detail wrong, and I think you have a strange notion of "user".
T he end user of a BSD codebase could actually only get a binary blob, and that would not be violating the license at all. They could also get only partial sources, or be missing a key component (bootloader signing tool, firmware blob, etc).
The GPL says: Here is a program, and you're guaranteed to be provided with the complete sources for modifying it too -- You know, so that if you have a use for it that's "vastly better or more complicated" than the distributor intended, you're sure to be able to tweak it. AND! You don't have to give back any of your complex code to anyone at all, nope, can just keep that in house in secret, and use it all you want. However, if you use some GPL'd code together with your code in a new software creation AND you distribute that to other people, you have to ensure that they can freely use the software and enjoy the same rights that you enjoyed with the GPL'd code you're using. You only have to distribute sources for the stuff that you redistribute, not "everything you make" -- All the in-house stuff you use and/or modify you get to keep closed up if you like.
The AGPL exists, but it's a different beast that says: If it's on a server and a user connects, the user should have the right to get the sources. That's so that you can continue to use your data even outside of the software as a service.
So, yeah, the BSD is "freer" if you're the developer who wants to implement vendor-lock-in, or forced-obsolescence. GPL is "freer" if you're the end user because it's anti-vendor-lock-in and anti-forced-obsolescence.
Let's face it: If your huge and complex proprietary software project is so valuable and elite, then you may not choose to utilize any GPL'd code -- You can afford to reinvent the tiny by comparison features that the GPL'd code provides, right? Ah, but you see, as the GPL codebase has grown large and feature rich some folks have gotten envious that they can't use any of all that really neat code in their proprietary software -- otherwise "which is really more free" wouldn't be a big deal, eh? What many folks fail to realize is that even just small pieces of GPL code can come into existence due to many years of lots more GPL'd software use. You don't get to cherry pick who's contributions are worth what, the contributor has the same rights as all the other contributors. If you consider the BSD "more free" then GPL is more fair.
I wonder what RMS would think of a more "business-friendly" license where a commercial entity selling software could take software that's publicly-available, modify it, and then distribute that to paying customers, but not back to the community, but where the license required them only to distribute the modified source code to those same customers, however the customers were not allowed to distribute it themselves.
RMS wouldn't like it. That's essentially what the most minimal definition of "Open Source" means -- Source access. When that company goes out of business you can't really outsource patches, you have to maintain it yourself which may be more expensive -- If you even can maintain it, the code may require a special compiler or the hardware could require code signing system that you don't have. Which is why the GPL exists as it does: To ensure that you will be able to use and improve the software you rely on even without the further input or permission of those who created it.
RMS doesn't do "Open Source Software" he does "Free Software" instead. The whole Free Software thing kicked off because he got a new OS, and his printer wouldn't work with it. He needed the driver source, and found another coder who had the same hardware and driver source, but they were required to sign a "business friendly" NDA such that that they could not pass on the code they received.
TL;DR: You don't have to "wonder what RMS would think", he created the GPL expressly to ensure customers had freedom from such "business friendly" (freedom limiting, sharing preventing) software. It's covered in his book: Free as in Freedom (2.0)
I loved that when I turned on my old Apple IIe it dropped me right to a 'root' BASIC terminal and didn't cost a dime to begin my software enterprise as an elementary schooler. The Mac? Well, Resedit was just not the same...
Maybe if Zuckerberg had finished his studies at Harvard, he would realize that an internet company and a university have two totally different business models and the analysis methods for one do not translate to the other.
Thank Fuck Almighty that Internet companies aren't run like Harvard!... yet.
On a social level, it's basically making babies without parental responsibility, and without the fun of sex or the possibility of venereal disease. I don't see how you could in good conscience make babies with the intent of selling them off.
I think the problem is in your definition of parent. I don't think semen is a baby, or that ejaculation creates a parent. I believe the role of parent is one that should be entered into voluntarily. For instance: A woman in the USA should be allowed to take birth control pills. A woman should be able to have an abortion if she decides to not be a parent. She should be able to give a child up for adoption if she doesn't want it. Currently a mother can drop her child off at any safe-house, no questions asked, no 18 years of child support, and she doesn't even have to tell anyone (not even the father) that a child was born.
Now, I don't think a man should have control over a woman's body just because she's impregnated with his sperm. He shouldn't be able to force her to abort or carry to term his child. However, since Motherhood is voluntary in the USA, then in the interest of equality, Fatherhood should be voluntary too. A woman is not required by law to inform her partner about her taking of birth control, or forgetting to take it. A man should be able to wear a condom if he wants to. A man should be able to get a vasectomy without consulting with his partner (doctors frequently prevent the latter). A woman can choose not to carry the child, or to give it up for adoption or drop it off at a safe house, so a man should be allowed to opt-out of fatherhood as the woman can.
If the woman knows she can not force a man to be a father against his will, then maybe she will make different choices about bringing a life into the world she can not support -- or opt to give it up for adoption. The lesbian couple agreed to become parents, the sperm donor did not. When the lesbians split up, the other woman who was not pregnant but had agreed to be a parent should be the one paying child support -- It was these mothers' voluntarily agreeing to become parents, then reneging late in the game that caused the situation where child support was necessary. The lesbian couple adopted a donor's sperm and agreed to carry out the parenting roles that come with having a baby. That adoption is such a racket these days is a related, but altogether different matter. However, it's interesting that even in adoption you have people voluntarily entering parenthood -- The state doesn't just force people to raise a child against their will... unless the person is a man.
It's quite heinous to force a child to be raised by people who do not want it. Indeed, to prevent mothers from abandoning their babies in dumpsters we have the no-questions asked safe-house drop off. Men shouldn't control women's bodies, but it's ridiculous to not give men any reproduction rights at all, especially when allowing them to opt-out of fatherhood well before the child is born doesn't limit a woman's choices in the least: She can still decide to be a mother or not. It's quite telling that feminists actually lobby against even such small degree of male reproductive rights, meanwhile claiming to be in favour of, "Equality". This is why I support Women's Rights, not feminism: Part of the problem is that the mother's lesbian partner was not given the right to be the child's parent. Granted, there are official means for sperm donors to help the couple out, but in the interest of equality and fairness the Judge shouldn't have required the donor to pay child support -- He only recognized half of the lesbian couple's right to voluntary parenthood.
Education benefits from parental involvement. A sperm donor would be depriving the children of those useful resources.
You are delusional if you think that two lesbian women would necessarily be depriving their child of the useful resources of education and parental involvement.
hey are early adopter perpetrators of this scam they are just deluded suckers instead.
So, I want to pay someone in the UK for helping with some development work, and I transfer them some Dollars by way of Bitcoin and they get it in their bank account as Pounds... Then how am I being a scammed deluded sucker instead of benefiting from Bitcoin's cheap (currently free) decentralized electronic global transaction system?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh. For Fuck's beta.
You didn't just compare it to Windows Ehhh-- Windows Eihhhhh.... The interface formerly known as metro?!
Repent! The end is incredibly fucking nigh!
But apart from the data being presented, the style in which it's presented, and the user's interaction with that data, there's basically very little wrong?
Hmm, reminds me of that one time...
Incorrect. It is far more efficient to adapt your bodies to survive the environment.
Then why do people build houses? Why were things like the furnace and the air conditioner invented? Heck, why was clothing invented?
Because you lacked the technology to provide a more efficient solution. GP's argument stands. It is less efficient to build a home that to have no need of it. I can't see how parent post is "insightful", it merely poses several questions and makes a false statement using the word "only" that should be trivially dismissed. We don't "only live on this planet because we have developed many ways of altering the environment." We live here because this is where life could evolve. Life had to evolve in this environment long before being able to change it.
Even if you believe that by some magic creation myth a god altered the environment for life to begin existence, you're argument would still be wrong. The energy expended in the creation of the environment to suit life would be greater than simply finding another planet that already had the environment you needed (a trivial task given an omnipotent omnipresent deity).
Do not assume that the way we've been doing things is the right way. That path leads to extinction.
Right, and then just like in Tejas / Texas, they'll marry the local people, then have a revolt and join the uh...union? Chinese search engine Baidu is interested in expanding internationally. The trans-revolutionary name of Detroit, Michigan will be: Meng Tan tian, Daihatsu -- The former means something like flat, smooth, quiet, peaceful in Chinese; The latter is a Japanese automaker (note that the 'first' and 'last' names get swapped around).
The manufacturing we once relied on Detroit's for is now done overseas. Nevada could face similar problems when gambling and sex work is legalized. Since they're positioned between California and the rest of the nation, Nevada would be logistically natural home for call-centers. Their temporary revolutionary name will be Devadas -- Indian for "servant of the gods".
Yep. It's the MBA equivalent of the Anthropic Principal.
Thanks for that helpful comparison---without it, I would have had no clue how long 71 seconds actually is.
Really? I didn't find it helpful at all. I had to look it up myself. 71 seconds is about 81.5 miles (~ 131.3 km) long. Given approximately 69 miles (or 111 km) per degree of longitude or latitude (longitudinal degrees vary widely, covering less distance approaching the poles).
I'm still confused about their thermal coefficient as related the distance or how exactly that relates to 8oz of water microwaved -- Seems it would depend on at least the pressure, starting temperature, destination temperature, and the types of surfaces experiencing the friction (assuming unlubricated seconds).
Oh my, would you just look at the time? I'd rather not lose my place, thanks.
To be a chess grandmaster requires a great natural aptitude - but it also requires devotion to practice and study within that very narrow field.
Or simply enough RAM to index the solution table...
I've always been puzzled when people say what the "Founders intended".
That's quite odd, because they've literally written volumes on the subject. Try visiting a library instead of puzzling next time.
The Founders lived in a time when it took days to get from one populated area to another, on horseback.
And we live in a time when business is international, and it takes days to get from one side of the country to another by car.
They were wealthy land owners upset with being pushed around by a monarchy thousands of miles away.
And we're considered a wealthy civilization upset with being pushed around by banks and the federal government from thousands of miles away.
They did a fine job in creating a new country, but they created it for the times they were in and the technology they had.
Oh how easy it is for you deluded youths to ignore anything they actually believed. Do you think they intended to create a nation to last just for the week-end? Even the Declaration of Independence alludes to a historical perspective of the machinations that rule humanity, key among them universal truths of freedom (in that freedom and pursuit of happiness, liberty, and life is the natural state sans government). You're either a joker or a fool, and what you wrote isn't funny.
There's nothing sacred about the laws or structure they enacted. Undoubtedly some of the motivation behind a structure with states having power was due to the realities of a sparsely populated country and frontier, and recent bad experiences with a monarchy. There's certainly nothing magical about state and local government.
Agreed, there's nothing magical about cybernetics. The laws of nature which govern the flow of information indicate that awareness of events is greater the close to the events and wide the network is. Further up the chain the knowledge must be compressed because these entities are fewer, and yet their brains are the same size. It is not sacred, but obvious and wise to decouple the power structure to maximize freedom and agency of the citizen.
Both can be just as wasteful and abusive as federal government, especially, as we've seen, when it comes to personal liberties and civil rights.
One is demonstrably far more wasteful than the other. Not a single terrorist stopped from a nation wide spying program -- Tell me, fool, do you think a state or local government pressure international corporations into such a raw deal? Do you think that your city council will declare war on intangible ideas and pour trillions into it? I suggest you go back to school -- Or, since yours has done so poorly at educating you, simply use the Internet we built for you to become less ignorant.
What a lot of people seem to be missing is that the GOP is in the middle of a transformation.
Now stop for a moment and think: Why don't we have any people who are doctors in every field of study?
Interestingly, long ago the volume of knowledge was such that a single human could easily contain all of it -- or certainly enough to be considered an expert in everything. As your society progresses the amount of knowledge and information out paces your capability to know everything, and so you must specialize your knowledge and skills to continue advancement. It's a double edged sword: Science has no true divisions; The universe is unified. Overspecialization can leave you just as blind, but you must make do with the brains you've come into sentience with... for now.
Who is more of a hillbilly? The one who still thinks that human heads can store and apply infinite knowledge, or the one who realizes the relatively new field of computer science plus at least one programming language has a greater cognitive load than learning another culture's language? In the Age of Information where nearly every device has computational capacity, is it more advantageous to learn to speak multiple human languages or learn to communicate with machines? I guess it would depend on whether one plans on being a troglodyte or not.
Tell me, human, do you think it is more efficient to learn multiple human languages, or to standardize on one? Before you answer, consider that if you want to be a programmer you practically must learn English first. However, if you already know English...
Nowhere did it mention security as a risk that MS executives have on their radar screen at all.
Of course not. Why would they be? They're the ones who make Windows.
Nice try NSA. You've already shown your hand. We know you can love kittens on any website in the world, it's obvious that you've snuggled this poor commenter's post to spread your delightful agenda.
Your comment makes no sense.
Oh, AC... you poor thing. I understand your confusion: Words don't make sense without context.
If you are a "little person" then you might think all this talk about "national security" is about protecting you and your interests, ensuring your safety. That's wrong. Only you are responsible for protecting yourself. Congress has ruled the police have no obligation to protect you, they are enforcers of the law against those who break it (if they're "little people").
If you are a corporation then "security" means ensuring existence of your socio-economic status, and influence over politics, despite the will of the people. That's what "national security" is, except under that label they don't have to worry about pesky FOIA requests exposing such actions.
You don't have "national safety" you have "Security theater". It's not just harmless bureaucratic waste, it's actually preparation to keep you from organizing any activism enough to change anything. Just like the stuff they did under COINTELPRO; Thus, their ability to maintain the status quo is "secure". Any real threat to life is pretty much ignored unless it's not really a big deal and can be heavily monetized by the state -- See: War on Drugs. The important thing to note is that the electronic spying apparatus has been in operation for decades. PRISM's spying was in place pre-9/11 and yet failed to protect us; There's no evidence it's ever protected us, since that's not what it was meant to do. The powers that be have no real interest in your safety, just that you are "secured". They're actually hoping for another disaster. Four hundred times more folks die every year from heart disease and accidents than a 9/11 scale attack, yet we still drive the kids to get a happy meal -- Compared to nearly any other risk, even falling down in the bath or lightning, the terrorist threat is pathetically small. The scaremongering threat narrative is only needed to push through more draconian legislation, like the PATRIOT Act, by manufacturing your consent.
Now, once you've educated yourself, you too can lament the state of things. Welcome to the discussion.
'Stable sometimes' is remarkable in the absence of hardware MFGs support. It hasn't really been that long since hardware MFGs have gotten behind support for open source drivers. Now that a AAA game developer / publisher / marketplace has come to the free-side of the source, things are looking bright indeed.
Folks are waking up to the reality that it might not be in the best interest of their business strategy rely too heavily on another company for their success. Especially not after MS's reception of W8, it's marketplace, and their shady hardware platform dealings (not informing platform partners, no more pre-release for MSDN access, etc). Even if they fix the issues folks are becoming a bit gun-shy now, rightly so. Why needlessly tie yourself to a ship that might sink or make you walk the plank when it's easy to diversify and get free community support and better PR, thus customer loyalty essentially for free? Starting a new software project (esp. game) it costs nothing extra to ensure it runs on all the major platforms. So, the choice is: Hey, we can make it just work with one OS/platform, or for the same effort, pick up the market share of all the other major OSs too by selecting a cross platform engine / toolkit / compiler at the outset.
Since the olden days the hobbyist / tinkerers / free thinkers could be looked to for indication as to the future market place. PC hobbyists all over online digital distribution and 'social networking' in the BBS era, boom the Internet exploded when exposed more broadly. The demoscene led the way showing nifty tricks in software rasterizing, and later in hardware rasterizing, and later in shaders, before mainstream developers had public products. The homebrew hobbyist gamedev scene has been espousing "cross platform or bust" long before AAA studios realized exclusivity was dumb financially, and now the "indie devs" are echoing sentiments such as "games are art, art shouldn't have planned obsolescence DRM death sentences" and such...
It goes back farther than this: The Renaissance heralded the industrial revolution. Stories about adventure and exploration yielded (re)discovery of America, laymen interest in design progress, space, and technology predicted your nuclear and space ages. It's no mistake the 'wacky' robotic fascination of your late 20th century indicated a largely robotic workforce with huge mechanical organisms for continuous production. Ideas seeded in your 'far-fetched' early adopter culture are converging even now to lead you to the next of your great advancements. Take a look around and see.
I'm jaded too, but my outlook is: Well, finally they got their heads out of that recursive anus -- Wonder how long it'll take AAA and MPAA producers to realize DRM is hurting business, and after that to realize Copyright is artificial scarcity lunacy too: You can ask for enough up front, 'give away', that which you've already been paid you to create, and your competition can't compete with 'free'. Lots of little devs are starting to test the waters of that route: less churn, more stability, free publicity / advertising, more freedom and creativity, zero piracy, simply continue working to continue earning money... just like any other labor market. Just look how long it took those dumb apes to figure out folks buy hardware, not drivers. Everyone alive now will probably be about dead by the time that other stuff happens at this rate, but it'll happen eventually. The market forces of economy work. Just look at the doomed printing press industry. I'm just amazed how long you've clung to the horrible concept of idea monopolies -- those will soon be eradicated as a matter of civil rights: People can sue for patent infringement if a machine thinks about an algorithm? Oh, for kracken's sake.
Sure would be nice if by some strange twist of fate I'm still around when all that comes to pass -- Nothing is more r
Holy attack surface, Bat Man!
<blink> Yes </blink>
The BSD approach is "Here is something nice I made - have it and do what you like, hope you have fun!"
The GPL approach is "Here is something nice I made - you can use it, but if you you have to let me play with you stuff. I don't care that your thing might be vastly better or more complicated than mine, if you're using my stuff you sure better make sure I can use everything you make."
Well, "more free" is subjective. However, you got a key detail wrong, and I think you have a strange notion of "user".
T he end user of a BSD codebase could actually only get a binary blob, and that would not be violating the license at all. They could also get only partial sources, or be missing a key component (bootloader signing tool, firmware blob, etc).
The GPL says: Here is a program, and you're guaranteed to be provided with the complete sources for modifying it too -- You know, so that if you have a use for it that's "vastly better or more complicated" than the distributor intended, you're sure to be able to tweak it. AND! You don't have to give back any of your complex code to anyone at all, nope, can just keep that in house in secret, and use it all you want. However, if you use some GPL'd code together with your code in a new software creation AND you distribute that to other people, you have to ensure that they can freely use the software and enjoy the same rights that you enjoyed with the GPL'd code you're using. You only have to distribute sources for the stuff that you redistribute, not "everything you make" -- All the in-house stuff you use and/or modify you get to keep closed up if you like.
The AGPL exists, but it's a different beast that says: If it's on a server and a user connects, the user should have the right to get the sources. That's so that you can continue to use your data even outside of the software as a service.
So, yeah, the BSD is "freer" if you're the developer who wants to implement vendor-lock-in, or forced-obsolescence. GPL is "freer" if you're the end user because it's anti-vendor-lock-in and anti-forced-obsolescence.
Let's face it: If your huge and complex proprietary software project is so valuable and elite, then you may not choose to utilize any GPL'd code -- You can afford to reinvent the tiny by comparison features that the GPL'd code provides, right? Ah, but you see, as the GPL codebase has grown large and feature rich some folks have gotten envious that they can't use any of all that really neat code in their proprietary software -- otherwise "which is really more free" wouldn't be a big deal, eh? What many folks fail to realize is that even just small pieces of GPL code can come into existence due to many years of lots more GPL'd software use. You don't get to cherry pick who's contributions are worth what, the contributor has the same rights as all the other contributors. If you consider the BSD "more free" then GPL is more fair.
I wonder what RMS would think of a more "business-friendly" license where a commercial entity selling software could take software that's publicly-available, modify it, and then distribute that to paying customers, but not back to the community, but where the license required them only to distribute the modified source code to those same customers, however the customers were not allowed to distribute it themselves.
RMS wouldn't like it. That's essentially what the most minimal definition of "Open Source" means -- Source access. When that company goes out of business you can't really outsource patches, you have to maintain it yourself which may be more expensive -- If you even can maintain it, the code may require a special compiler or the hardware could require code signing system that you don't have. Which is why the GPL exists as it does: To ensure that you will be able to use and improve the software you rely on even without the further input or permission of those who created it.
RMS doesn't do "Open Source Software" he does "Free Software" instead. The whole Free Software thing kicked off because he got a new OS, and his printer wouldn't work with it. He needed the driver source, and found another coder who had the same hardware and driver source, but they were required to sign a "business friendly" NDA such that that they could not pass on the code they received.
TL;DR: You don't have to "wonder what RMS would think", he created the GPL expressly to ensure customers had freedom from such "business friendly" (freedom limiting, sharing preventing) software. It's covered in his book: Free as in Freedom (2.0)
I loved that when I turned on my old Apple IIe it dropped me right to a 'root' BASIC terminal and didn't cost a dime to begin my software enterprise as an elementary schooler. The Mac? Well, Resedit was just not the same...
More like: "That's it, teeth have failed me once again. I'm going back to sucking schlongs!"
It's a false dichotomy -- A disservice to all the great cocksuckers of the world with full mouths of pearly white.
Maybe if Zuckerberg had finished his studies at Harvard, he would realize that an internet company and a university have two totally different business models and the analysis methods for one do not translate to the other.
Thank Fuck Almighty that Internet companies aren't run like Harvard!... yet.
I wouldn't wish Harvard on my worst enemies. Princeton's not a whole hell of a lot better. Academia is screwed, mate; It's become the realm of pseudo scientific propaganda, and guilt until proven innocent. Abandon brain all ye who enter there.
On a social level, it's basically making babies without parental responsibility, and without the fun of sex or the possibility of venereal disease. I don't see how you could in good conscience make babies with the intent of selling them off.
I think the problem is in your definition of parent. I don't think semen is a baby, or that ejaculation creates a parent. I believe the role of parent is one that should be entered into voluntarily. For instance: A woman in the USA should be allowed to take birth control pills. A woman should be able to have an abortion if she decides to not be a parent. She should be able to give a child up for adoption if she doesn't want it. Currently a mother can drop her child off at any safe-house, no questions asked, no 18 years of child support, and she doesn't even have to tell anyone (not even the father) that a child was born.
Now, I don't think a man should have control over a woman's body just because she's impregnated with his sperm. He shouldn't be able to force her to abort or carry to term his child. However, since Motherhood is voluntary in the USA, then in the interest of equality, Fatherhood should be voluntary too. A woman is not required by law to inform her partner about her taking of birth control, or forgetting to take it. A man should be able to wear a condom if he wants to. A man should be able to get a vasectomy without consulting with his partner (doctors frequently prevent the latter). A woman can choose not to carry the child, or to give it up for adoption or drop it off at a safe house, so a man should be allowed to opt-out of fatherhood as the woman can.
If the woman knows she can not force a man to be a father against his will, then maybe she will make different choices about bringing a life into the world she can not support -- or opt to give it up for adoption. The lesbian couple agreed to become parents, the sperm donor did not. When the lesbians split up, the other woman who was not pregnant but had agreed to be a parent should be the one paying child support -- It was these mothers' voluntarily agreeing to become parents, then reneging late in the game that caused the situation where child support was necessary. The lesbian couple adopted a donor's sperm and agreed to carry out the parenting roles that come with having a baby. That adoption is such a racket these days is a related, but altogether different matter. However, it's interesting that even in adoption you have people voluntarily entering parenthood -- The state doesn't just force people to raise a child against their will... unless the person is a man.
It's quite heinous to force a child to be raised by people who do not want it. Indeed, to prevent mothers from abandoning their babies in dumpsters we have the no-questions asked safe-house drop off. Men shouldn't control women's bodies, but it's ridiculous to not give men any reproduction rights at all, especially when allowing them to opt-out of fatherhood well before the child is born doesn't limit a woman's choices in the least: She can still decide to be a mother or not. It's quite telling that feminists actually lobby against even such small degree of male reproductive rights, meanwhile claiming to be in favour of, "Equality". This is why I support Women's Rights, not feminism: Part of the problem is that the mother's lesbian partner was not given the right to be the child's parent. Granted, there are official means for sperm donors to help the couple out, but in the interest of equality and fairness the Judge shouldn't have required the donor to pay child support -- He only recognized half of the lesbian couple's right to voluntary parenthood.
Education benefits from parental involvement. A sperm donor would be depriving the children of those useful resources.
You are delusional if you think that two lesbian women would necessarily be depriving their child of the useful resources of education and parental involvement.
hey are early adopter perpetrators of this scam they are just deluded suckers instead.
So, I want to pay someone in the UK for helping with some development work, and I transfer them some Dollars by way of Bitcoin and they get it in their bank account as Pounds... Then how am I being a scammed deluded sucker instead of benefiting from Bitcoin's cheap (currently free) decentralized electronic global transaction system?
Man, I wonder how aggressive the Space TSA will be?
What? This is unacceptable! How can you not know this? You've got it backwards: The TSA came after the alien abduction leaks.
I'm filing a formal complaint with your Cultural Indoctrination & Acclimation overseers.
You win the Internet!