... but you could show more flexibility towards OSS projects by dual-licensing under GPLv2 and GPLv3.
I don't really share that concern. The GPL has been the major obstacle in most open source license incompatibilities long before GPLv3 came out. Most people need to look at this fairly complicated reference table in order to figure out the compatibility issues the GPL has with itself, saying nothing of the issues it has with other open source licenses. If GNU really likes the GPLv3, I say let them have it. After all, look what it's given us in just this one case: LLVM! I've appreciated GCC for a long time, but maybe competition within the open source universe isn't so bad.
Sure, Apple might not give a backdoor to the Indian government, but chances are it (or your cell phone service provider) is giving a backdoor to the US government, pursuant to CALEA and other laws. And Skype is mandated to put in backdoors too...
It's cute that you think the US government needs handset manufacturers to include backdoors in order to wiretap. It's much easier to just control the networks. \tinfoil
In the other case, violent crimes happened where the protests were occurring, but had nothing to do with the protesters' message. It's a pretty important distinction, and one that many (biased) people like to overlook.
I didn't say that rape and murder define Occupiers (the opposite, actually), but you seem to be saying that a couple wackos with guns and inappropriate signs should define the Tea Party. Your bias is showing.
You either don't know the popular ideals of the Tea Party, or you're intentionally trying to distort them. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I can't really call myself a Tea Partier, so I'm not that best person to educate you, but I'll just say that a bloody revolution is actually not a prominent theme among their ranks and leave it at that.
I get what you're saying, but I guess I just disagree that the presence of guns automatically makes a situation more dangerous. As they say, guns don't kill people; people kill people. A civil person with a gun will cause less harm than a person without a gun who is intent on causing harm. That said, an uncivil person with a gun can cause considerably more damage than an uncivil person without a gun, but that's irrelevant if the group is entirely civil (which the Tea Party seems to be, or at least those actually bearing the firearms).
As to why bring a gun to a rally, I think it mostly has to do with the large overlap of 2nd-amendment advocates (NRA types) and the Tea Party. It may be a lot less common in some states versus others, but some people choose to carry firearms (either concealed or "open") everywhere they are legally allowed, if only to exercise their right to do so. Other people have real concerns over their own self-defense in general, so perhaps they carried at rallies, even though they may not have felt any explicit threat by attending the rally versus any other place where they live. I bet that some of the guns at rallies (especially rifles) were unloaded and used only as props to go with the colonial garb of some Tea Partiers. I can't say for sure. I've never actually been to any of these rallies, but I have come across the types of people that I just described around where I live, so I only have that limited insight into the minds of these people.
Didn't the Tea Party bring guns to some place or other? I remember hearing about that somewhere on here. Or was that a./ myth?
Sure. In America, it is still legal to own guns and carry them in most public places (usually requiring a permit if the weapon is concealed). It may be important to note that of all the Tea Party rallies, no weapons were ever fired, or at least nobody was killed. Going out on a limb here, but I think terrorists usually use their guns to kill as many people as they can, so maybe the term "terrorist" is misapplied to Tea Party people. There were actually a few cases of rape and even murder among the Occupiers, but it's just as ridiculous to call them terrorists.
It's more like having freedom of speech, but anyone who feels like it can revoke it. GPL doesn't restrict freedom, it enforces freedom.
Yeah, except a company which decides to use and modify open source software without giving back does not revoke anyone else' right to the code... so, in other words, it's not like that at all.
Actually, Firefox has done a lot to improve addon compatibility. They now have a bot that checks the API calls of all addons in their repository and automatically marks those that don't use any changed API's.
A bot scanning their addon repository is their (presumably temporary) solution? How about roll back to the previous version scheme until they can actually fix their software? Any plugin system which relies on hardcoded version numbers is clearly broken.
I really really really really really really want the old Google Search interface back.;-( More importantly, I wish Google Search would actually search for what I type in. It's amazing and sad to see what they've done with their most useful product lately.
I just got a fancy 8 core T7500 Dell workstation and only one of my compilers actually takes advantage of the multiple cores when it is compiling.
If your compiler isn't threaded, then at least run multiple compile jobs simultaneously--this is probably better anyway. If your build system can't do this, your tools are broken.
And leads to extremely bad code. Goto has the same thing - it can be extremely powerful, but overusing it leads to really bad code.
It's not so much about overuse. Rather, it's the misuse of macros and gotos (and any other coding construct) that can lead to bad code. Macros and gotos get a bad rap because they get misused more often than other constructs, mostly by those who are really new to programming. When used appropriately, these constructs can make code more readable and easier to maintain. It's too bad that so many students are being taught to avoid gotos at all cost; better to teach them when gotos can be used to good effect.
So- what does it take- what will it take to prove man is having an impact on the environment-
Perhaps you are not convincing many people because most of your questions are like this one, crafted to obliterate some silly-looking straw man. Even among the unwashed masses, there are few indeed who would be willing to argue that man has no impact on the environment. It's obviously impossible for us not to have an impact on the environment, for we are a part of the environment just as every other living species is.
HOW DO WE CONVINCE YOU?
Here is a good question, though, so I'll give you a straight answer. I am only a simple man and without formal training in the art or science of climate research. Your position would be more convincing to me if we didn't already know that this world has already experienced warming and cooling in the past. Many times. Before humans started burning fossil fuels. Almost as if the average temperature of Earth has been changing in cycles for a while. And many periods of climate change that this world has gone through have been much more severe than the one we're experiencing now. A rational explanation of this would go a long way. Bonus points if you could show how a higher average temperature of Earth would necessarily be a bad thing for humans. What has definitely not been shown is that rising CO2 is causing an increase of extreme weather; from the evidence that I've seen, the sun and solar fluctuations are still what drive our weather patterns.
Before some of these things are explained or proven, it will remain much easier to believe that politicians, businessmen, and scientists seeking funding are simply invested in trumping up this issue for their own personal gain. Sad, but true.
Or do you happen to know someone who has a device running Honeycomb and was able to follow up on the legal requirement that the source be made available to them?
I haven't followed Google's behavior with the Android source code that closely, but what legal requirement are you talking about? I thought Android was Apache licensed?
Regardless of Android's license, there is no legal requirement for Google to release any code except portions to which they do not hold the copyright and are licensed (to Google) under viral conditions (i.e. GPL). Google's own code (as long as it is not classified as a derivative of someone else's work under the GPL), even if it was released under the GPL (or any open source license) in the past, does not have to be provided freely because Google is the copyright holder and therefore is not subject to the license as if they were a licensee.
As far as I'm aware, Google is adhering to any licensing terms that they are subject to. They also open source some of their own code, as well. Non-story.
I don't even know about it and everything just works (including all my addons)
How does the number and functionality of your Chrome Add-ons compare to Firefox add-ons?
Personally, there are no FF plug-ins anymore that I wish I had for Chromium. Nevertheless, I'm sure FF still has more plug-ins, so maybe there are some more esoteric plug-ins that people have come to like that aren't available for Chromium. I don't know...
So when Apple posts HTML5 demos that only work in Safari, everyone shit on them. I fully expect here on Slashdot to jump on Google's case for making this Chrome-only. Right, guys? Guys?
Umm, exactly. More than every other up-modded comment here is blasting Google and Chrome.
I have nothing against making it a 64 bit binary in general, but there really is absolutely no advantage to doing so. If your browser is eating more than 3 gigs of memory, your browser is broken, you should fix that problem first, not make it so it can eat more memory.
You're probably overlooking one of the major reasons why 64-bit binaries are beneficial (at least on the x86-64 architecture): more registers! More registers means less accessing main memory or cache just for local variables, which means faster code.
A 64-bit Firefox is also preferable if the rest of the system is already 64-bit because the need to load a whole bunch of 32-bit shared libraries which are only used by one program will be eliminated, meaning less wasted memory which may lead to better cache utilization. I'm not sure how congruous this last point is because I'm not familiar with how Firefox is built on the relevant platforms.
How do you figure? Linux got 64bit binaries before Windows. Sounds like 64-bit Windows is the stepchild to me.
OP is probably referring to how measurably slow Firefox is on Linux (and Mac OS X) compared to Windows, the assumption being that Mozilla cares less about Firefox on less popular platforms.
Except that there is no example of a free market in this story. The whole patent system (government granting exclusive rights to an idea) is yet another governmental mechanism that encourages the development of monopolies and is definitely not a free market principle. Another case where we would be better served by the government just getting out of the way. Software patents are especially ridiculous considering software is just an expression of mathematics.
Slashdot Mirror
... but you could show more flexibility towards OSS projects by dual-licensing under GPLv2 and GPLv3.
I don't really share that concern. The GPL has been the major obstacle in most open source license incompatibilities long before GPLv3 came out. Most people need to look at this fairly complicated reference table in order to figure out the compatibility issues the GPL has with itself, saying nothing of the issues it has with other open source licenses. If GNU really likes the GPLv3, I say let them have it. After all, look what it's given us in just this one case: LLVM! I've appreciated GCC for a long time, but maybe competition within the open source universe isn't so bad.
This guy will literally say anything to get elected.
Seeing as how the next primary is in Florida, it seems like being for a lunar base and other NASA projects would more likely be pandering.
was replying to guy mentioning his favorite KDE based distro
But you put it in a list of advantages PC-BSD has over a Linux-based operating system, and it's not one.
Sure, Apple might not give a backdoor to the Indian government, but chances are it (or your cell phone service provider) is giving a backdoor to the US government, pursuant to CALEA and other laws. And Skype is mandated to put in backdoors too...
It's cute that you think the US government needs handset manufacturers to include backdoors in order to wiretap. It's much easier to just control the networks. \tinfoil
In the other case, violent crimes happened where the protests were occurring, but had nothing to do with the protesters' message. It's a pretty important distinction, and one that many (biased) people like to overlook.
I didn't say that rape and murder define Occupiers (the opposite, actually), but you seem to be saying that a couple wackos with guns and inappropriate signs should define the Tea Party. Your bias is showing.
You either don't know the popular ideals of the Tea Party, or you're intentionally trying to distort them. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I can't really call myself a Tea Partier, so I'm not that best person to educate you, but I'll just say that a bloody revolution is actually not a prominent theme among their ranks and leave it at that.
I get what you're saying, but I guess I just disagree that the presence of guns automatically makes a situation more dangerous. As they say, guns don't kill people; people kill people. A civil person with a gun will cause less harm than a person without a gun who is intent on causing harm. That said, an uncivil person with a gun can cause considerably more damage than an uncivil person without a gun, but that's irrelevant if the group is entirely civil (which the Tea Party seems to be, or at least those actually bearing the firearms).
As to why bring a gun to a rally, I think it mostly has to do with the large overlap of 2nd-amendment advocates (NRA types) and the Tea Party. It may be a lot less common in some states versus others, but some people choose to carry firearms (either concealed or "open") everywhere they are legally allowed, if only to exercise their right to do so. Other people have real concerns over their own self-defense in general, so perhaps they carried at rallies, even though they may not have felt any explicit threat by attending the rally versus any other place where they live. I bet that some of the guns at rallies (especially rifles) were unloaded and used only as props to go with the colonial garb of some Tea Partiers. I can't say for sure. I've never actually been to any of these rallies, but I have come across the types of people that I just described around where I live, so I only have that limited insight into the minds of these people.
Didn't the Tea Party bring guns to some place or other? I remember hearing about that somewhere on here. Or was that a ./ myth?
Sure. In America, it is still legal to own guns and carry them in most public places (usually requiring a permit if the weapon is concealed). It may be important to note that of all the Tea Party rallies, no weapons were ever fired, or at least nobody was killed. Going out on a limb here, but I think terrorists usually use their guns to kill as many people as they can, so maybe the term "terrorist" is misapplied to Tea Party people. There were actually a few cases of rape and even murder among the Occupiers, but it's just as ridiculous to call them terrorists.
It's more like having freedom of speech, but anyone who feels like it can revoke it. GPL doesn't restrict freedom, it enforces freedom.
Yeah, except a company which decides to use and modify open source software without giving back does not revoke anyone else' right to the code... so, in other words, it's not like that at all.
Actually, Firefox has done a lot to improve addon compatibility. They now have a bot that checks the API calls of all addons in their repository and automatically marks those that don't use any changed API's.
A bot scanning their addon repository is their (presumably temporary) solution? How about roll back to the previous version scheme until they can actually fix their software? Any plugin system which relies on hardcoded version numbers is clearly broken.
I have no idea how this made front page...
... and ruining the UIs of their best services.
I really really really really really really want the old Google Search interface back. ;-( More importantly, I wish Google Search would actually search for what I type in. It's amazing and sad to see what they've done with their most useful product lately.
I just got a fancy 8 core T7500 Dell workstation and only one of my compilers actually takes advantage of the multiple cores when it is compiling.
If your compiler isn't threaded, then at least run multiple compile jobs simultaneously--this is probably better anyway. If your build system can't do this, your tools are broken.
MacOS X is a skyscraper in the same way a house is a skyscraper.
Perhaps you haven't had your coffee yet.
And leads to extremely bad code. Goto has the same thing - it can be extremely powerful, but overusing it leads to really bad code.
It's not so much about overuse. Rather, it's the misuse of macros and gotos (and any other coding construct) that can lead to bad code. Macros and gotos get a bad rap because they get misused more often than other constructs, mostly by those who are really new to programming. When used appropriately, these constructs can make code more readable and easier to maintain. It's too bad that so many students are being taught to avoid gotos at all cost; better to teach them when gotos can be used to good effect.
You don't ask Apple for anything. You just declare what your application needs from OS to function.
Ever heard of Android? Works the same way.
But but but it's more fun to sensationalize the truth so we all can have another pretend reason to hate Apple.
So- what does it take- what will it take to prove man is having an impact on the environment-
Perhaps you are not convincing many people because most of your questions are like this one, crafted to obliterate some silly-looking straw man. Even among the unwashed masses, there are few indeed who would be willing to argue that man has no impact on the environment. It's obviously impossible for us not to have an impact on the environment, for we are a part of the environment just as every other living species is.
HOW DO WE CONVINCE YOU?
Here is a good question, though, so I'll give you a straight answer. I am only a simple man and without formal training in the art or science of climate research. Your position would be more convincing to me if we didn't already know that this world has already experienced warming and cooling in the past. Many times. Before humans started burning fossil fuels. Almost as if the average temperature of Earth has been changing in cycles for a while. And many periods of climate change that this world has gone through have been much more severe than the one we're experiencing now. A rational explanation of this would go a long way. Bonus points if you could show how a higher average temperature of Earth would necessarily be a bad thing for humans. What has definitely not been shown is that rising CO2 is causing an increase of extreme weather; from the evidence that I've seen, the sun and solar fluctuations are still what drive our weather patterns.
Before some of these things are explained or proven, it will remain much easier to believe that politicians, businessmen, and scientists seeking funding are simply invested in trumping up this issue for their own personal gain. Sad, but true.
>I probably should have ranted on some other, more deserving article footer comment
Nah, this one deserves it. The footer is a backhanded slap at WiFi support for Linux when it's greatly improved over the years.
-- BMO
Thank goodness for BSD.
ducks
Or do you happen to know someone who has a device running Honeycomb and was able to follow up on the legal requirement that the source be made available to them?
I haven't followed Google's behavior with the Android source code that closely, but what legal requirement are you talking about? I thought Android was Apache licensed?
Regardless of Android's license, there is no legal requirement for Google to release any code except portions to which they do not hold the copyright and are licensed (to Google) under viral conditions (i.e. GPL). Google's own code (as long as it is not classified as a derivative of someone else's work under the GPL), even if it was released under the GPL (or any open source license) in the past, does not have to be provided freely because Google is the copyright holder and therefore is not subject to the license as if they were a licensee.
As far as I'm aware, Google is adhering to any licensing terms that they are subject to. They also open source some of their own code, as well. Non-story.
How many active users does Facebook have? 12%? They have 800'000'000 accounts, congratulations... While actual user count is below 200'000'000.
Only 200 million at most... what a dismal failure.
I don't even know about it and everything just works (including all my addons)
How does the number and functionality of your Chrome Add-ons compare to Firefox add-ons?
Personally, there are no FF plug-ins anymore that I wish I had for Chromium. Nevertheless, I'm sure FF still has more plug-ins, so maybe there are some more esoteric plug-ins that people have come to like that aren't available for Chromium. I don't know...
Surely there's a more efficient way to have 2 separate phone environments running on the same handset.
Yep. Just as there's a more efficient way to have two separate operating environments running on the same personal computer or server.
So when Apple posts HTML5 demos that only work in Safari, everyone shit on them. I fully expect here on Slashdot to jump on Google's case for making this Chrome-only. Right, guys? Guys?
Umm, exactly. More than every other up-modded comment here is blasting Google and Chrome.
I have nothing against making it a 64 bit binary in general, but there really is absolutely no advantage to doing so. If your browser is eating more than 3 gigs of memory, your browser is broken, you should fix that problem first, not make it so it can eat more memory.
You're probably overlooking one of the major reasons why 64-bit binaries are beneficial (at least on the x86-64 architecture): more registers! More registers means less accessing main memory or cache just for local variables, which means faster code.
A 64-bit Firefox is also preferable if the rest of the system is already 64-bit because the need to load a whole bunch of 32-bit shared libraries which are only used by one program will be eliminated, meaning less wasted memory which may lead to better cache utilization. I'm not sure how congruous this last point is because I'm not familiar with how Firefox is built on the relevant platforms.
How do you figure? Linux got 64bit binaries before Windows. Sounds like 64-bit Windows is the stepchild to me.
OP is probably referring to how measurably slow Firefox is on Linux (and Mac OS X) compared to Windows, the assumption being that Mozilla cares less about Firefox on less popular platforms.
Free market at its finest !
Except that there is no example of a free market in this story. The whole patent system (government granting exclusive rights to an idea) is yet another governmental mechanism that encourages the development of monopolies and is definitely not a free market principle. Another case where we would be better served by the government just getting out of the way. Software patents are especially ridiculous considering software is just an expression of mathematics.