I feel like I have a good case-study to answer this question. I did policy debate for the past three years, which has meant hulling a printer around the state/country. When it wasn't being hulled to tournaments, it would go back a forth from school in friend's cars quite often. The files we regularly printed off on it were generally 50 - 100 pages long, sometimes longer, and sometimes (saturday morning updates, etc.) much smaller. Every now and again I would print off a book (300-500 pages) on it.
I'm using it at college now and I still haven't had a problem with it.
It works perfectly on osx and windows. I run linux, and installing the cups drivers is a bit of a pain but after the first time (during which I documented my own procedure) it hasn't taken more than 10 minutes.
No. The lines hold legal meaning, and have nothing to do with the way in which one writes on those lines.
"Print name here" means "indicate the person to whom this form is pertinent"
"sign name here" means "indicate that you agree to these terms and make a sign that verifies your identity"
For example, If someone is being all nice and ritzy and filling out a form for me (someone selling me a car, insurance, etc.,) they can write my name on the "print your name" line. But only I can sign on the "sign your name" line. It has nothing to do with the font that is used on those lines.
Unless you're left handed. Writing cursive left handed sucks, and made my hands ache after just a paragraph. I could write pages in print, but cursive was painful
Eh, more likely they were just blindsided by the sudden availability of word processors and really did think you'd have to hand-write everything indefinitely far into the future.
Nope. Because my teachers told me the same thing, but the computers and word processing software we used in 8th was bought by the school a year before my 4th grade year.
Everyone knows it's bull, but "you'll have to do this later" is the only thing that justifies teaching cursive.
I agree. So don't use non-GPL software. "free" doesn't mean something universally. The question that should always proceed the statement that something is free is, of course, what is this free from?
You would like to be free from others telling you what software you can use. Which is why I point out the contradiction between your goal and your choices. Because universal adherence to the GPL is the only thing that can truly free you from others telling you what software you can use.
The difference between Stallman telling you not to use a piece of software and Apple telling you not to use a piece of software is in the purpose for that restriction. And that is why Stallman does understand -- and at a much more fundamental level than the one at which you are basing your conclusions -- what free means.
You've gotten off topic -- the question is not whether "pragmatism" is better than "purity." The question is whether the argument itself is healthy for free software.
I claim that it isn't because the argument itself has legitimized the view that free software is just another "paradigm" for more cost-effective development. And that's bad because it misses the point of the entire free software movement -- that software shouldn't be treated as a commodity.
See my post here for an answer to the "purism isn't pragmatic" -- where it's actually on topic.
Just don't start with VB, PHP, Java or C# as it will screw the person up for lifetime.
I strongly disagree with this. Refusing to learn a new way of doing things will screw the person up for a lifetime. But the blame for that is on the person who is now screwed up, for being lazy.
I think that -- like any other question in pedagogy -- there is no right answer that applies to everyone. But I still find the reasoning in this article absurd.
You have to look at the source code to figure out what a Scheme program is doing? Isn't this true in.... every language? Even if the "source code" consists of little blocks you're dragging and dropping together?
Get a centro. I have one. Love it. Plus, why ever migrate away from palm's old OS? It isn't the latest flashy thing to come to the market, but it's definitely the best if you have real requirements (as opposed to features you're convinced you need)
On par, AIDS doesn't improve the human spirit, even though people get impassioned by it. The lust for victory that arises from a battle doesn't mean the war is an indicator of healthy relationships between the warring nations.
The battle over open source is bad not because it separates, but rather because it has created a false dichotomy. The way that the current question is phrased proves this. "Purists" are viewed as ideologues not because of existing conditions, but rather because of the failure of the open source community to understand the fundamental posit that free software is built upon: that non-free software inhibits the pragmatic use of all software. If the current argument did not exist, the success of open source software would not be viewed as a proof of a particular approach to designing software that has proven itself economically sufficient, but rather as a proof of a more fundamental rejection of non-free software.
Because it's impossible to use the internet without a web browser... it's not like every modern programming language has a socket library that could be used to whip up a downloader for a given binary in about 10 minutes....
You offer me the choice of either hoarding my creations or allowing others to steal them. I choose neither. And it is precisely because of this that I do agree that there needs to be a rejection of all forms of private software that inhibit the freedom of the user.
You've got it backwards. GPL is different from DRM because DRM exists to limit the ways in which a user can use property, whereas GPL exists to limit the ways a developer can use property.
You are making the argument that RMS's version of free software limits the way a piece of property can be used because it limits what property one should use. And you are correct -- which is why I disagree with your conclusion. Your point is valid insofar as not all software is GPL. That is why RMS wants everyone to use free software exclusively -- and why the basis of your argument (that restricting the use of non-free software is a restriction of user's freedoms) lays the foundation for and proves the effectiveness of RMS's vision. Any use of a non-free abstraction (software, protocols, etc.) necessarily precludes the effectiveness of all other software. We can either accept this (as you propose) and go on with a continuous cycle of hoarding and stealing (MSFT et. al. will simply find new ways to prevent replication of software, means that will undoubtedly be everything but friendly to innovation and user freedoms) or we can accept RMS's argument that as long as non-free software is used, no software is free.
Well, seeing as the bug was found in the Just-in-Time compiler (first link), probably someone who is concerned that the section of the code that they are working on will become a bottle neck, or someone that has to do special stuff that requires unbounded buffers.
If you travel, and ATT Uverse is in your area, get the service. You get your TV and home internet connnection, and also free access at airport, starbucks, and mcdonalds hotspots.
...this cluster had nearly 4 times the number of nodes as the previous records. This competition was testing who had more nodes working together the best, but when you have so many more nodes, it would be hard not to top other clusters.
I'm probably the largest enemy of public school systems you will find (Illich's "Deschooling Society"? Not radical enough.) However, I'm the first to say that the public to private system - via vouchers or otherwise -- is a horrible idea. It works in small quantities and in tandem with the public school system, but ultimately you would end up with an even more nascent socio-economic divide.
The only reason private schools can exist is because there is a public infrastructure to take everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Insofar as there is nothing nefarious about lobbying period.
no, that's why google comes up with lots of great stuff that you don't even know you're paying for.
primarily because it hasn't. Corporations have been considered people for ages.
I feel like I have a good case-study to answer this question. I did policy debate for the past three years, which has meant hulling a printer around the state/country. When it wasn't being hulled to tournaments, it would go back a forth from school in friend's cars quite often. The files we regularly printed off on it were generally 50 - 100 pages long, sometimes longer, and sometimes (saturday morning updates, etc.) much smaller. Every now and again I would print off a book (300-500 pages) on it.
I'm using it at college now and I still haven't had a problem with it.
It works perfectly on osx and windows. I run linux, and installing the cups drivers is a bit of a pain but after the first time (during which I documented my own procedure) it hasn't taken more than 10 minutes.
Even if you were right, I'm sure there's plenty of searching and pattern matching in video games. Especially searching.
Regardless, video games are not nearly as interesting an encryption.
No. The lines hold legal meaning, and have nothing to do with the way in which one writes on those lines.
"Print name here" means "indicate the person to whom this form is pertinent"
"sign name here" means "indicate that you agree to these terms and make a sign that verifies your identity"
For example, If someone is being all nice and ritzy and filling out a form for me (someone selling me a car, insurance, etc.,) they can write my name on the "print your name" line. But only I can sign on the "sign your name" line. It has nothing to do with the font that is used on those lines.
Cursive, every time.
Unless you're left handed. Writing cursive left handed sucks, and made my hands ache after just a paragraph. I could write pages in print, but cursive was painful
Eh, more likely they were just blindsided by the sudden availability of word processors and really did think you'd have to hand-write everything indefinitely far into the future.
Nope. Because my teachers told me the same thing, but the computers and word processing software we used in 8th was bought by the school a year before my 4th grade year.
Everyone knows it's bull, but "you'll have to do this later" is the only thing that justifies teaching cursive.
Removing freedom does not make me "free".
I agree. So don't use non-GPL software. "free" doesn't mean something universally. The question that should always proceed the statement that something is free is, of course, what is this free from?
You would like to be free from others telling you what software you can use. Which is why I point out the contradiction between your goal and your choices. Because universal adherence to the GPL is the only thing that can truly free you from others telling you what software you can use.
The difference between Stallman telling you not to use a piece of software and Apple telling you not to use a piece of software is in the purpose for that restriction. And that is why Stallman does understand -- and at a much more fundamental level than the one at which you are basing your conclusions -- what free means.
You've gotten off topic -- the question is not whether "pragmatism" is better than "purity." The question is whether the argument itself is healthy for free software.
I claim that it isn't because the argument itself has legitimized the view that free software is just another "paradigm" for more cost-effective development. And that's bad because it misses the point of the entire free software movement -- that software shouldn't be treated as a commodity.
See my post here for an answer to the "purism isn't pragmatic" -- where it's actually on topic.
Just don't start with VB, PHP, Java or C# as it will screw the person up for lifetime.
I strongly disagree with this. Refusing to learn a new way of doing things will screw the person up for a lifetime. But the blame for that is on the person who is now screwed up, for being lazy.
I think that -- like any other question in pedagogy -- there is no right answer that applies to everyone. But I still find the reasoning in this article absurd.
You have to look at the source code to figure out what a Scheme program is doing? Isn't this true in.... every language? Even if the "source code" consists of little blocks you're dragging and dropping together?
Get a centro. I have one. Love it. Plus, why ever migrate away from palm's old OS? It isn't the latest flashy thing to come to the market, but it's definitely the best if you have real requirements (as opposed to features you're convinced you need)
On par, AIDS doesn't improve the human spirit, even though people get impassioned by it. The lust for victory that arises from a battle doesn't mean the war is an indicator of healthy relationships between the warring nations.
The battle over open source is bad not because it separates, but rather because it has created a false dichotomy. The way that the current question is phrased proves this. "Purists" are viewed as ideologues not because of existing conditions, but rather because of the failure of the open source community to understand the fundamental posit that free software is built upon: that non-free software inhibits the pragmatic use of all software. If the current argument did not exist, the success of open source software would not be viewed as a proof of a particular approach to designing software that has proven itself economically sufficient, but rather as a proof of a more fundamental rejection of non-free software.
Because it's impossible to use the internet without a web browser... it's not like every modern programming language has a socket library that could be used to whip up a downloader for a given binary in about 10 minutes....
You offer me the choice of either hoarding my creations or allowing others to steal them. I choose neither. And it is precisely because of this that I do agree that there needs to be a rejection of all forms of private software that inhibit the freedom of the user.
You've got it backwards. GPL is different from DRM because DRM exists to limit the ways in which a user can use property, whereas GPL exists to limit the ways a developer can use property.
You are making the argument that RMS's version of free software limits the way a piece of property can be used because it limits what property one should use. And you are correct -- which is why I disagree with your conclusion. Your point is valid insofar as not all software is GPL. That is why RMS wants everyone to use free software exclusively -- and why the basis of your argument (that restricting the use of non-free software is a restriction of user's freedoms) lays the foundation for and proves the effectiveness of RMS's vision. Any use of a non-free abstraction (software, protocols, etc.) necessarily precludes the effectiveness of all other software. We can either accept this (as you propose) and go on with a continuous cycle of hoarding and stealing (MSFT et. al. will simply find new ways to prevent replication of software, means that will undoubtedly be everything but friendly to innovation and user freedoms) or we can accept RMS's argument that as long as non-free software is used, no software is free.
Well, seeing as the bug was found in the Just-in-Time compiler (first link), probably someone who is concerned that the section of the code that they are working on will become a bottle neck, or someone that has to do special stuff that requires unbounded buffers.
Home automation is going to be a huge part of improving grid energy efficiency over the next several decades.
how to use less energy? Install 36 million electric meters! Wait...
If you travel, and ATT Uverse is in your area, get the service. You get your TV and home internet connnection, and also free access at airport, starbucks, and mcdonalds hotspots.
...this cluster had nearly 4 times the number of nodes as the previous records. This competition was testing who had more nodes working together the best, but when you have so many more nodes, it would be hard not to top other clusters.
Encryption. Now, kindly STFU, "creative industries"
"If you have nothing to hide, government surveillance would not matter at all."
If you have nothing to hide, encrypt everything anyways.
"Hmm... Why shouldn't either of these impose restrictions on how you use THEIR resources?"
because they are MY resources. I thought we went through this 200 years ago?
because then it wouldn't be "OMGZ TWITTAR!"
I'm probably the largest enemy of public school systems you will find (Illich's "Deschooling Society"? Not radical enough.) However, I'm the first to say that the public to private system - via vouchers or otherwise -- is a horrible idea. It works in small quantities and in tandem with the public school system, but ultimately you would end up with an even more nascent socio-economic divide.
The only reason private schools can exist is because there is a public infrastructure to take everyone else.