Compiling from source is ironically the most consistent thing across various unix platforms. There are very few tools that I find require more than a "./configure; make ; make install" and it's been that way for the last 15 years I've been using unix variants.
Exactly. Source distribution isn't what causes incompatibilities, it's all the friggen binary package systems do. And on a decently fast processor most apps can be compiled faster than you can read a Microsoft EULA.
Oh, and for the real die hards: I'm a programmer, and if the price is right I don't give a damn about the source, as long as it works as advertised.
Funny, I'm not a programmer. Oh, I've been playing at it as a hobby for a couple of decades now and can generally make out from the source how programs do what they do, but I'm definetely not a "programmer", but the last thing I want is to go back to having my balls in some binary only distributors vice.
...But when you can tell me why making more money means I should pay a higher Percentage of that money then I'll agree that a flat tax is stupid...
Because progressive taxes are a compromise that enables democracy and capitalism to coexist by putting more of the burden on those who have profited the most from the system.
My right to patent my idea is granted to me by the Constitution.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Examine the statement again:
"Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Just because they have the power does not mean they have to execute it, so it is Congress' right, not yours.
Maybe the Aussies and Brits are not subject to a draconian legal system designed to control the common man for the benefit of the wealthy? I think our American legal system was evolved especially for controlling property, and people have been property in America for a long time, since its beginning, when we had indentured servants, and then African slaves.
There were indentured servents and African slaves long before there was a USA. Wanna take a guess at who brought it here?
And now consumers are the New Property. And the same old brutal plantation-oriented laws are being focused on American consumers.
Serfs and peasants were the property of their landlords long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue. American copyright law, up until the mid twentieth century was actually pretty fair as far as such laws go. Much of the rest of the world didn't even have such a concept as the "public domain". It wasn't until the US gave into the demands of Europe that they got downright draconian.
Living in Kentucky also, I'm going to have to have to jump in here and say this has been a friggin' warm winter compared to many in the past. According to NOAA:
"The average temperature in January 2005 was 38.9 F. This was 4.8 F warmer than the 1895-2005 average, the 18th warmest January in 111 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is -0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade."
The problem with the patent system today is that the patents are often not in the hands of those that produce and implement the patents in question. Instead, they are concentrated into holding companies that use them to cash in on patent infringments. Often these patents are neither novel nor non-obvious, so many have no idea they are infringing on a patent before they are slapped with a lawsuit. If this model of business was to be made unprofitable, many of the problem with the patent system would vanish.
You are forgetting one other problem with patents, particularly software ones, and that is simply that there are about ten fold more people alive today then there were centuries ago.
Let's say that your idea was so novel that only one person in a billion would have thought of it. Sure, three hundred years ago you may have been the only person in the world to see the solution to a problem, but today odds are there are at least six other people who see it too.
I have little reason to see why the US government would care much about software patents in the EU
There is a very big reason that the US government cares and that is competition in the global marketplace. As long as Europeans aren't shackled by software patents their programmers can code and sell just about anything they want while American programmers live in constant fear of being sued for implementing an idea that someone may have come up with before them.
I'm curious as to how many people still use Mozilla, anyway.
I doubt we can know for sure but I'm sure there are quite a few, possibly even more than use Firefox. One of the reasons I stuck with Netscape when IE came out back in my Windows days was its integration of common tasks such as browsing, reading email and newsgroups, etc.
Really, just because some idiotic baby boomers can't comprehend "save some cash for later in life" doesn't mean the rest of us who have a fucking clue should be forced to hand over our cash.
Baby boomers have been "saving" cash for later in life, but basing the amount to save on expected SSI benefits. Changing the rules at this stage of the game is in essence removing the clue they were given decades ago.
Good. It needs to be done away with. If you're too stupid to put a little bit of your money aside each month for your future, you deserve to die in a gutter somewhere without medication, shelter or food.
You do remember that Social Security was created as a result of the Great Depression, right? Millions of people who put money away for retirement were among the jobless standing in breadlines. Now, if there is any one thing that can cause the downfall of capitalism, that one thing would be to have starving people dying in gutters. Many a revolution has come about due to that very reason.
Maybe I'm just too cynical, but sooner or later , they will get their way and software patents will come. I refuse to believe that Europeans would be so stupid as to make a law that would require sending money to the US for something as trivial as selling an item with one mouse click.
I doubt that opt-in copyright will be stricken from the records - the rest of the world uses it, it would create a legal nightmare for any company that spans US/international borders.
Then perhaps the rest of the world should reconsider automatic copyrights. They may have made sense in a time when there was a definite cost involoved in the distribution of creative works which necessitated compensation for publishers and that which was public domain was passed around by oral tradition. The distinction between the two was pretty obvious, if it was in print it was protected.
Today, when nearly anyone can publish for no more than the cost of bandwidth, this distinction is no longer clear making it impossible for the average person to determine just what he can legally distribute.
In my mind there is an easy answer to this dilemna and that is mandatory registration of protected works in an universally searchable database. This would benefit artists by removing the "I didn't know it was copyrighted" excuse yet still enable consumers to freely distribute that which is theirs to distribute.
What's wrong with just letting people save money on their own for their retirement? I say we end Social Security and let people plan for themselves.
Social Security Insurance, or SSI, was created after the stock market crash of 1929 that left millions of people who had planned for their retirement destitute. The country was heading straight towards a second, possibly even Marxist, revolution.
Sure, you can block the ads however in the end if/when enough people block ads and the ad-supported business model becomes unviable then you will have lost the so-called arms race as you will be unable to access the websites without a subscription.
I think you are missing the gp poster's point. Many of us aren't against advertising, just the way the ads are presented. Personally, I never bothered blocking until they became so obnoxious that reading a site's content become literally impossible due to all the flashing gizmos and gadgets. Static ads never bothered me and I never hesitated to click one if the product interested me but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit still and be blinded just to pay your bills.
You're probably not missing anything if you prefer dedicated software. For me though, integrating web browsing, html editing, and email is just logical and one of the reasons I kept using Netscape instead of the Outlook/IE combo in my Windows days.
I had the opposite reaction. After trying Firefox I found it so spartan that I realised just how much I would miss the Mozilla suite if its development would ever stop.
No, the logic is not flawed. How many people do you see walking in to a police station smoking a joint yelling "come on and bust me!". For civil disobedience to be effective people have to force the government to arrest them. If you really believe that copyright law is wrong flaunt your infringement and make them put you behind bars. Secretly downloading stuff from the internet and bitching on/. isn't going to change a thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Compiling from source is ironically the most consistent thing across various unix platforms. There are very few tools that I find require more than a "./configure; make ; make install" and it's been that way for the last 15 years I've been using unix variants.
Exactly. Source distribution isn't what causes incompatibilities, it's all the friggen binary package systems do. And on a decently fast processor most apps can be compiled faster than you can read a Microsoft EULA.
Oh, and for the real die hards: I'm a programmer, and if the price is right I don't give a damn about the source, as long as it works as advertised.
Funny, I'm not a programmer. Oh, I've been playing at it as a hobby for a couple of decades now and can generally make out from the source how programs do what they do, but I'm definetely not a "programmer", but the last thing I want is to go back to having my balls in some binary only distributors vice.
Kickass 3d shooter games and support for devices.
No, the biggest problem is that whenever Linux gaming is discussed all that is mentioned is "kickass" 3D shooters.
...But when you can tell me why making more money means I should pay a higher Percentage of that money then I'll agree that a flat tax is stupid...
Because progressive taxes are a compromise that enables democracy and capitalism to coexist by putting more of the burden on those who have profited the most from the system.
My right to patent my idea is granted to me by the Constitution.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Examine the statement again:
"Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Just because they have the power does not mean they have to execute it, so it is Congress' right, not yours.
Maybe the Aussies and Brits are not subject to a draconian legal system designed to control the common man for the benefit of the wealthy? I think our American legal system was evolved especially for controlling property, and people have been property in America for a long time, since its beginning, when we had indentured servants, and then African slaves.
There were indentured servents and African slaves long before there was a USA. Wanna take a guess at who brought it here?
And now consumers are the New Property. And the same old brutal plantation-oriented laws are being focused on American consumers.
Serfs and peasants were the property of their landlords long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue. American copyright law, up until the mid twentieth century was actually pretty fair as far as such laws go. Much of the rest of the world didn't even have such a concept as the "public domain". It wasn't until the US gave into the demands of Europe that they got downright draconian.
So can anybody tell me is this extension for the integrated Mozilla suite or is it only for the standalone browser Firefox?
Wouldn't it be smarter to move apps to OS X?
Only if you prefer the fire to the frying pan. Let us know when Apple supports 95% the available hardware out there.
When I follow the direct link you posted in Firefox I get the follwoing page:-
Referer Link Error
Weird, it worked on the first try with Mozilla 1.7.5. Besides, referrer blocking is stupid since the referrer can be changed so easily.
I'm gonna have to go with you on this one.
Living in Kentucky also, I'm going to have to have to jump in here and say this has been a friggin' warm winter compared to many in the past. According to NOAA:
"The average temperature in January 2005 was 38.9 F. This was 4.8 F warmer than the 1895-2005 average, the 18th warmest January in 111 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is -0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade."
The problem with the patent system today is that the patents are often not in the hands of those that produce and implement the patents in question. Instead, they are concentrated into holding companies that use them to cash in on patent infringments. Often these patents are neither novel nor non-obvious, so many have no idea they are infringing on a patent before they are slapped with a lawsuit.
If this model of business was to be made unprofitable, many of the problem with the patent system would vanish.
You are forgetting one other problem with patents, particularly software ones, and that is simply that there are about ten fold more people alive today then there were centuries ago.
Let's say that your idea was so novel that only one person in a billion would have thought of it. Sure, three hundred years ago you may have been the only person in the world to see the solution to a problem, but today odds are there are at least six other people who see it too.
I have little reason to see why the US government would care much about software patents in the EU
There is a very big reason that the US government cares and that is competition in the global marketplace. As long as Europeans aren't shackled by software patents their programmers can code and sell just about anything they want while American programmers live in constant fear of being sued for implementing an idea that someone may have come up with before them.
So your argument would actually work in Australia but not in the U.S. which is "Constitution-based federal repulbic"
Yes, but in this case it also would work in the US because the Constitution specifically states that Congress gets to determine what is property.
I'm curious as to how many people still use Mozilla, anyway.
I doubt we can know for sure but I'm sure there are quite a few, possibly even more than use Firefox. One of the reasons I stuck with Netscape when IE came out back in my Windows days was its integration of common tasks such as browsing, reading email and newsgroups, etc.
Really, just because some idiotic baby boomers can't comprehend "save some cash for later in life" doesn't mean the rest of us who have a fucking clue should be forced to hand over our cash.
Baby boomers have been "saving" cash for later in life, but basing the amount to save on expected SSI benefits. Changing the rules at this stage of the game is in essence removing the clue they were given decades ago.
Good. It needs to be done away with. If you're too stupid to put a little bit of your money aside each month for your future, you deserve to die in a gutter somewhere without medication, shelter or food.
You do remember that Social Security was created as a result of the Great Depression, right? Millions of people who put money away for retirement were among the jobless standing in breadlines. Now, if there is any one thing that can cause the downfall of capitalism, that one thing would be to have starving people dying in gutters. Many a revolution has come about due to that very reason.
Maybe I'm just too cynical, but sooner or later , they will get their way and software patents will come.
I refuse to believe that Europeans would be so stupid as to make a law that would require sending money to the US for something as trivial as selling an item with one mouse click.
I doubt that opt-in copyright will be stricken from the records - the rest of the world uses it, it would create a legal nightmare for any company that spans US/international borders.
Then perhaps the rest of the world should reconsider automatic copyrights. They may have made sense in a time when there was a definite cost involoved in the distribution of creative works which necessitated compensation for publishers and that which was public domain was passed around by oral tradition. The distinction between the two was pretty obvious, if it was in print it was protected.
Today, when nearly anyone can publish for no more than the cost of bandwidth, this distinction is no longer clear making it impossible for the average person to determine just what he can legally distribute.
In my mind there is an easy answer to this dilemna and that is mandatory registration of protected works in an universally searchable database. This would benefit artists by removing the "I didn't know it was copyrighted" excuse yet still enable consumers to freely distribute that which is theirs to distribute.
What's wrong with just letting people save money on their own for their retirement? I say we end Social Security and let people plan for themselves.
Social Security Insurance, or SSI, was created after the stock market crash of 1929 that left millions of people who had planned for their retirement destitute. The country was heading straight towards a second, possibly even Marxist, revolution.
Sure, you can block the ads however in the end if/when enough people block ads and the ad-supported business model becomes unviable then you will have lost the so-called arms race as you will be unable to access the websites without a subscription.
I think you are missing the gp poster's point. Many of us aren't against advertising, just the way the ads are presented. Personally, I never bothered blocking until they became so obnoxious that reading a site's content become literally impossible due to all the flashing gizmos and gadgets. Static ads never bothered me and I never hesitated to click one if the product interested me but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit still and be blinded just to pay your bills.
You're probably not missing anything if you prefer dedicated software. For me though, integrating web browsing, html editing, and email is just logical and one of the reasons I kept using Netscape instead of the Outlook/IE combo in my Windows days.
I had the opposite reaction. After trying Firefox I found it so spartan that I realised just how much I would miss the Mozilla suite if its development would ever stop.
Personally, I think it would be better to be quiet about any copyright infringement you're up to instead of flaunting it when the RIAA loses one case.
Flaunting copyright infringement is the only way those who are opposed to the current laws are going to get them changed.
It should be obvious that this is flawed logic.
/. isn't going to change a thing.
No, the logic is not flawed. How many people do you see walking in to a police station smoking a joint yelling "come on and bust me!". For civil disobedience to be effective people have to force the government to arrest them. If you really believe that copyright law is wrong flaunt your infringement and make them put you behind bars. Secretly downloading stuff from the internet and bitching on
A simple command builder GUI with check boxes to toggle switches and fields to enter args for a particular command.
I'm going to say this is a great idea, of course I have to because I've recently been thinking of working on such an application.