Maybe not, but if my effort is widely replicated, it will cost them way more in the long run. Yes, they've rectified the situation, but they had to be dragged into it. They didn't act like good citizens right up front. I will stop complaining about them in about a year or so, but for now...
And likely more. I've been telling my friends not to buy them, and I know of at least one buying decision that was made specifically for that reason that cost them $120 worth of sales of USB wireless adapters.
Well, I didn't spend a lot of time trying actually. It would be interesting to see. I strongly suspect I could get cross-compiling to zLinux working (Linux running on an S/390) but I bet cross-compiling to MVS/OS390/z/OS wouldn't work so well. That is a very weird environment from the standpoint of running standard Unixy programs in. It works, but I get the impression that there's a lot going on behind the scenes that I don't understand that makes it work.
If it were that simple, that's what I'd do, but it isn't. Do you really think I can just set up an S/390 cross-compiler on some random box somewhere and have it just work?
For the past year or so. The environment has potential. But the CPU speed is horribly slow. I would have really loved a cross compiler that could offload CPU intensive C++ compilation off onto some other box that wasn't so CPU limited.
It's really interesting the things that take no time at all on the mainframe (grepping the source tree) and the things that take forever (compiling it). It's an odd architecture. There are definitely things you should not use it for, but it would likely make an excellent web server.
Ahh, a member of the 'Java is the solution to everything.' guild. I went from thinking Java was a fantastic idea, to being unenthused because it was overly verbose, unexpressive and slow. And now, thanks to people like you, I despise the language and think it's one of the worst things to hit the computer industry in years, mostly because some people seem to think it's the solution.
If you want a real garbage collected, platform independent language that works with your environment and OS instead of misguidedly trying to replace it, use Ruby or Python. Both are less verbose, more expressive and all-around more powerful. They aren't screamingly fast, but if you really cared about that you wouldn't be using Java and it's bloated multi-megabyte operating system masquerading as a VM either.
I would like to think that some things can be managed without a legal billy-club to hit people with.
I'm not opposed to an organization having private changes internally. But I do think that pointing out to those organizations that having those private changes internally is generally against their own best interests and doing the community as a whole a disservice is not wrong.
I believe that the GPLv3 does not have such a clause. If it did, I wouldn't want to use it, and I remember being generally pleased with the license. Though I also see Linus' point of view regarding the anti-DRM clauses.
I don't share software to be an altruist who gets off on sharing. I share software because that kind of software is the only software I will use because it's in my own self-interest.
As such, I will happily complain about banks not sharing the internal changes they've made to their software. Or Amazon for that matter. I didn't 'offer to clean their lavatory'. I made a contribution to a whole pile of tools because I hope to use those tools myself someday and want to make them better.
I don't care what it is or isn't in terms of marketing or positioning. That term of service is a blatant violation of a principle I find very important. Just because it's not likely to affect me personally doesn't mean I don't care.
Umm, it's not FUD. The LJ TOS very clearly now state that you aren't allowed to use ad-blocking software when viewing LJ. This isn't OK, and actually doesn't have a lot to do with LJ's new ad program. I don't mind LJ's new ad program, but I greatly mind LJ's new TOS.
But it is most definitely not a legitimate authority when trying to determine whether or not a restaurant owner should be able to discriminate based on race. The original poster was not claiming that current law did not prohibit this. His argument was that it shouldn't. When arguing about whether or not a law should exist, the law itself is hardly a legitimate authority.
I detected no asshatted bigotry in his statement. You are projecting an attitude on him that's extremely negative when his actual statements were much less negative. This is an ad-hominem attack and is a debating technique to use when you don't have anything more solid.
Also, hauling out the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a defense is kind of silly, because the original poster would probably site that as an example of a broken law. That basically represents an argument by appealing to authority, and is also a debating technique to use when you have no solid facts or reasoning to back you up.
Lastly, your "Fire!" statement, while peripherally addressing the argument, fails to come at it head on. That particular rule could be summarized as "When you say something that you have a reasonable expectation will result in immediate harm to others, that is no longer covered by the first ammendment.". So, if he lead a lynch mob on his property, he could be convicted of murder even though the event is only related to his words and he took no part in any actual kidnapping, beating or murder of the victim.
But, I've not had much time to work on it since I've been employed.:-( And it's a much nicer, decentralized solution to this problem that has potentially much less weight and wider applicability than PGP.
That's why I said after he finished speaking. Yes, he has the freedom to get up there and say whatever he likes. He doesn't have the right to be listened to or have what he says be greeted warmly.
Copyright is not a fundamental right. You might try reading John Locke and a couple of other authors on the topic of natural rights.
It is not a fundamental right because it can't be enforced in the absence of a government. Yes, property rights writ large (I own a company!) can't really be enforced in the absence of a government, but property rights in the small can be, and were before governments decided to take it on as their own responsibility.
The vigorous enforcement of anything resembling copyright only dates back to half a century or so after the invention of the printing press. And even then it was concieved of as a publishing right so that rival publishers didn't put themselves out of business publishing eachother's books. Our constitution represents one of the first formal reformulations of that gentleman's agreement among publishers as a copyright for authors in an attempt to encourage more authorship.
So, compared to physical property rights, copyrights have had such a brief existence as to be almost meaningless.
The implicitness of copyright only dates from the 1970s. Before you had to formally register for a copyright, much like you still have to for patents.
It is a direct attack on my freedom to do what I want with the stuff I bought fair and square. And that's a fundamental property right. Copyright is not.
I sheepishly admit that I watch DVDs and have even bought a few. But, I do only use illegal software to do so.
I have thought of downloading all of my DVDs from the net, but I really do like movies, and I don't think the movie producers are anywhere near as evil as RIAA is. I don't feel the constant urge to donate money to the actor or director who's work I'm watching to because I'm almost sure they got none for making the movie.
*sigh* But, you got me on DVDs. I don't like it at all, and if a crack doesn't come out for Blu-Ray or HD-DVD or whatever, I probably won't be watching them.
I won't use software that implements it, and I won't watch or listen to media that uses it. It is a direct attack on my freedom, and I don't take kindly to that at all.
If the Linux community had any backbone, he would've been booed off the stage after he finished speaking. If it's DRM or die, I'd rather the latter.
Personally, I think the RIAA ought to be pursuing criminal charges in each and every single one of these cases (they could, the law allows it). In fact, I think they should expand the number of cases they bring to the millions. That's how many people illegally download music.
I think a good 10% of our population should be in prison over this. Such an awful bunch of people. Stealing music! My god, the horror of it.
I think that would provide a sufficient economic deterrent. Everybody would have so many taxes to pay to keep up the people in prison that they wouldn't be able to buy any music.
They almost certainly would, and they'd be wrong. I hate stupid patent tricks even more than I despise Microsoft, but I do not doubt that Microsoft will use them if they think they can get away with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe not, but if my effort is widely replicated, it will cost them way more in the long run. Yes, they've rectified the situation, but they had to be dragged into it. They didn't act like good citizens right up front. I will stop complaining about them in about a year or so, but for now...
And likely more. I've been telling my friends not to buy them, and I know of at least one buying decision that was made specifically for that reason that cost them $120 worth of sales of USB wireless adapters.
I thought Microsoft had forgotten the meaning of the word 'release'. They haven't seemed to have been able to do it for quite awhile now.
Well, I didn't spend a lot of time trying actually. It would be interesting to see. I strongly suspect I could get cross-compiling to zLinux working (Linux running on an S/390) but I bet cross-compiling to MVS/OS390/z/OS wouldn't work so well. That is a very weird environment from the standpoint of running standard Unixy programs in. It works, but I get the impression that there's a lot going on behind the scenes that I don't understand that makes it work.
If it were that simple, that's what I'd do, but it isn't. Do you really think I can just set up an S/390 cross-compiler on some random box somewhere and have it just work?
For the past year or so. The environment has potential. But the CPU speed is horribly slow. I would have really loved a cross compiler that could offload CPU intensive C++ compilation off onto some other box that wasn't so CPU limited.
It's really interesting the things that take no time at all on the mainframe (grepping the source tree) and the things that take forever (compiling it). It's an odd architecture. There are definitely things you should not use it for, but it would likely make an excellent web server.
More innnovation is a direct result of spending more money on it.
Or, maybe that's just Microsoft 'innovation'. They certainly often seem to have a curious definition for that word.
Ahh, a member of the 'Java is the solution to everything.' guild. I went from thinking Java was a fantastic idea, to being unenthused because it was overly verbose, unexpressive and slow. And now, thanks to people like you, I despise the language and think it's one of the worst things to hit the computer industry in years, mostly because some people seem to think it's the solution.
If you want a real garbage collected, platform independent language that works with your environment and OS instead of misguidedly trying to replace it, use Ruby or Python. Both are less verbose, more expressive and all-around more powerful. They aren't screamingly fast, but if you really cared about that you wouldn't be using Java and it's bloated multi-megabyte operating system masquerading as a VM either.
I would like to think that some things can be managed without a legal billy-club to hit people with.
I'm not opposed to an organization having private changes internally. But I do think that pointing out to those organizations that having those private changes internally is generally against their own best interests and doing the community as a whole a disservice is not wrong.
I believe that the GPLv3 does not have such a clause. If it did, I wouldn't want to use it, and I remember being generally pleased with the license. Though I also see Linus' point of view regarding the anti-DRM clauses.
I don't share software to be an altruist who gets off on sharing. I share software because that kind of software is the only software I will use because it's in my own self-interest.
As such, I will happily complain about banks not sharing the internal changes they've made to their software. Or Amazon for that matter. I didn't 'offer to clean their lavatory'. I made a contribution to a whole pile of tools because I hope to use those tools myself someday and want to make them better.
I think it is, but mostly because it's a really interesting insight into a problem I care about. This is Slashdot, News for Nerds after all. :-)
I don't care what it is or isn't in terms of marketing or positioning. That term of service is a blatant violation of a principle I find very important. Just because it's not likely to affect me personally doesn't mean I don't care.
It matters if I'm viewing LJ and I happen to be a member as well. Telling me I can't use ad blocking software is simply not OK.
Umm, it's not FUD. The LJ TOS very clearly now state that you aren't allowed to use ad-blocking software when viewing LJ. This isn't OK, and actually doesn't have a lot to do with LJ's new ad program. I don't mind LJ's new ad program, but I greatly mind LJ's new TOS.
But it is most definitely not a legitimate authority when trying to determine whether or not a restaurant owner should be able to discriminate based on race. The original poster was not claiming that current law did not prohibit this. His argument was that it shouldn't. When arguing about whether or not a law should exist, the law itself is hardly a legitimate authority.
I detected no asshatted bigotry in his statement. You are projecting an attitude on him that's extremely negative when his actual statements were much less negative. This is an ad-hominem attack and is a debating technique to use when you don't have anything more solid.
Also, hauling out the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a defense is kind of silly, because the original poster would probably site that as an example of a broken law. That basically represents an argument by appealing to authority, and is also a debating technique to use when you have no solid facts or reasoning to back you up.
Lastly, your "Fire!" statement, while peripherally addressing the argument, fails to come at it head on. That particular rule could be summarized as "When you say something that you have a reasonable expectation will result in immediate harm to others, that is no longer covered by the first ammendment.". So, if he lead a lynch mob on his property, he could be convicted of murder even though the event is only related to his words and he took no part in any actual kidnapping, beating or murder of the victim.
This is one of the only things you've said that I thought had a grain of sense.
CAKE
But, I've not had much time to work on it since I've been employed. :-( And it's a much nicer, decentralized solution to this problem that has potentially much less weight and wider applicability than PGP.
That's why I said after he finished speaking. Yes, he has the freedom to get up there and say whatever he likes. He doesn't have the right to be listened to or have what he says be greeted warmly.
Copyright is not a fundamental right. You might try reading John Locke and a couple of other authors on the topic of natural rights.
It is not a fundamental right because it can't be enforced in the absence of a government. Yes, property rights writ large (I own a company!) can't really be enforced in the absence of a government, but property rights in the small can be, and were before governments decided to take it on as their own responsibility.
The vigorous enforcement of anything resembling copyright only dates back to half a century or so after the invention of the printing press. And even then it was concieved of as a publishing right so that rival publishers didn't put themselves out of business publishing eachother's books. Our constitution represents one of the first formal reformulations of that gentleman's agreement among publishers as a copyright for authors in an attempt to encourage more authorship.
So, compared to physical property rights, copyrights have had such a brief existence as to be almost meaningless.
The implicitness of copyright only dates from the 1970s. Before you had to formally register for a copyright, much like you still have to for patents.
It is a direct attack on my freedom to do what I want with the stuff I bought fair and square. And that's a fundamental property right. Copyright is not.
I sheepishly admit that I watch DVDs and have even bought a few. But, I do only use illegal software to do so.
I have thought of downloading all of my DVDs from the net, but I really do like movies, and I don't think the movie producers are anywhere near as evil as RIAA is. I don't feel the constant urge to donate money to the actor or director who's work I'm watching to because I'm almost sure they got none for making the movie.
*sigh* But, you got me on DVDs. I don't like it at all, and if a crack doesn't come out for Blu-Ray or HD-DVD or whatever, I probably won't be watching them.
I won't use software that implements it, and I won't watch or listen to media that uses it. It is a direct attack on my freedom, and I don't take kindly to that at all.
If the Linux community had any backbone, he would've been booed off the stage after he finished speaking. If it's DRM or die, I'd rather the latter.
Personally, I think the RIAA ought to be pursuing criminal charges in each and every single one of these cases (they could, the law allows it). In fact, I think they should expand the number of cases they bring to the millions. That's how many people illegally download music.
I think a good 10% of our population should be in prison over this. Such an awful bunch of people. Stealing music! My god, the horror of it.
I think that would provide a sufficient economic deterrent. Everybody would have so many taxes to pay to keep up the people in prison that they wouldn't be able to buy any music.
They almost certainly would, and they'd be wrong. I hate stupid patent tricks even more than I despise Microsoft, but I do not doubt that Microsoft will use them if they think they can get away with it.