The great irony of this is that every post like yours perpetuates the Brogrammer narrative that the media is trying so hard to push. Everry stupid shrill SJW out there is actually sawing off the branch they're sitting on.
Actually, if any demographic of girls can resist the usual sorts of social indoctrination imposed upon "little princesses" then I would think it would be the Jews. Their own religion and culture as well as centuries of discrimination has pushed them into "geekier" roles.
If anything Israel should be viewed as the extreme exception. It likely doesn't have the anti-intellectualism associated with America. If "it's not working" in Israel than it likely won't anywhere.
EMACS is the whole reason the GPL exists to begin with. Some jackass hijacked it into a commercial project and RMS's contributors were pissed. They went to HIM with the torches and the pitchforks demanding an explanation.
The copyright holder of EMACS will most certaily sue your sorry ass for such a stunt.
As much as some people (even RMS) might want to portrary the GPL as some sort of communist plot, it really isn't. It's just a way to keep contributors happy. It turns out that most people don't want their charity abused by some crass corporation.
It also has the nice side effect that it allows for those same crass corporations to collaborate with some level of trust.
"Regular programmers" can easily exploit GNU in their own commercial offerings. The idea that they can't is a lie so absurd that it simply boggles the imagination. Some of the biggest corporatoins on the planet quite safely exploit GNU software and have been doing so for decades.
All that the RMS notion of freedom prevents is some toddler's notion of property where you take someone else's stuff and then declare exclusive ownership over it.
GNU software is by no means the most restrictive kind out there. The commercial stuff that programmers build off of are much more burdensome. This "toddler's dilemma" never seems to occur with commercial derived products. It never occurs to anyone to even whine about it.
The GPL and LGPL don't demand anything more of developers than what copyright law already does. That's the beauty of it.
I find it funny that considering all of the hate directed at RMS and the GPL that it took so f*cking long to replace gcc. You would think that all of these flaming corporate shills would have gotten together at some point sooner than this and "gotten things done".
GNU even managed to get it's own kernel built faster than the anti-GPL whiners managed to replace gcc.
Clearly the ignorant gits that want to perpetuate corporate friendly (and Microsoft friendly) urban legends have never actually tried any of this stuff before. A PC, a real PC, will just treat the HDMI port as yet another output. A TV is also nothing special. It will just treat your PC as just another set top box.
Encryption is NOT required. It's an available OPTION if you happen to be foolish enough to have something like a Sony BluRay player (which ironically happens to run Linux).
There is really nothing distinctive about a "television" any more.
> Pfft can't do anything via HDMI without HDCP to keep movie studios happy.
Sure you can. This is how you can connect Macs and PCs running Linux to a TV with an HDMI port. I am not quite sure who they were supposed to be pandering to with this move. Hooking up an HDMI connection should be a simple thing that requires permission from no one. Shouldn't matter if it's wired or wireless.
There is nothing "super easy" about installing an operating system when it comes to your average n00b. They can barely handle a windows style installer or downloading things with a web browser.
The only reason they can even run Windows is because it's pre-installed and they get plenty of free tech support from friends and family. The same goes for MacOS to.
Besides, it's only trolls that are even aware of "1001 distros" anyways. Most normal people just focus on what the first page of a Google search would tell them.
> They would go broke. The reason all of the sensors are there is because when they didn't have sensors, and some farmer misused they tool and got hurt, they sued the manufacturer
Quit being such a corporate tool.
The tort aspect of this is likely completely irrelevant since these are likely highly self reliant types used to fending for themselves for various reasons. Even in the city, this excuse "but we will get sued" is usually just bullshit. Lazy people are just trying to take advantage of the pervasive anti-lawyer propaganda.
My local authorities have never mandated that cars be as proprietary as possible. All they are interested in is certain measurable quantities of chemicals. They care squat for how that it actually accomplished.
Quite right. I feel the same about my point-and-shoot camera. It is not broken so I won't "fix" it. I do occasionally pine for a more capable camera but I don't really want to lug such a beast around.
The problem with "just mashing a button" is that quite often that isn't nearly good enough. Even if you are treating a more dedicated camera in the same way as a phone, it simply has more interesting capabilities.
Anything beyond a carefully curated still life is going to be out of a phone camera's capabilities.
It really doesn't matter how easy it is to create a big blurry blob. That's not anything you want to actually keep.
> Nobody wants to pay higher prices for a product.
Incorrect. Conspicuous consumers that want to appear richer than they actually are LOVE to pay higher prices for a product. That also goes for any "luxury" brand that any fanboy will try to dredge up as a comparison to Apple products.
There's much less reason for anyone to be up to no good in Plano. It's a nice respectable middle class suburb. It's not festering urban decay. That means less junkies and less crime.
> In the same way, are the musicians going to pay for that $10,000-a-day studio
According to the contract they will.
That's the kicker. Someone else said it. Label musicians are treated like employees when it comes to the masters but they are responsible for all of the production costs.
Those that don't have enough talent to actually create are actually the ones that can be completely taken out of the equation. This is especially true for modern forms of music that aren't dependent on large backing bands full of relatively mediocre performers.
...and if you actually read the label you will likely find that it is water plus concentrates.
That's not quite the same thing.
Like pretty much anything else, the real thing really doesn't look or taste like those food like substances in bright packages that most people are so fond of buynig.
You can't eat unlimited quantities of vegetables. Eventually you fill up. Try to push past that point and you will likely just throw everything back up.
You won't get fat off of vegetables because we aren't terribly good at digesting them.
You may not be able to get the pound of lard down either. Although it's certainly got more energy than a pound of vegetables.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. This was the kind of vehicle that Steve Austin crashed before he became the 6 million dollar man.
The great irony of this is that every post like yours perpetuates the Brogrammer narrative that the media is trying so hard to push. Everry stupid shrill SJW out there is actually sawing off the branch they're sitting on.
Actually, if any demographic of girls can resist the usual sorts of social indoctrination imposed upon "little princesses" then I would think it would be the Jews. Their own religion and culture as well as centuries of discrimination has pushed them into "geekier" roles.
If anything Israel should be viewed as the extreme exception. It likely doesn't have the anti-intellectualism associated with America. If "it's not working" in Israel than it likely won't anywhere.
People have free will. Who knew?
You're funny. You really are. Did you mean to be?
EMACS is the whole reason the GPL exists to begin with. Some jackass hijacked it into a commercial project and RMS's contributors were pissed. They went to HIM with the torches and the pitchforks demanding an explanation.
The copyright holder of EMACS will most certaily sue your sorry ass for such a stunt.
As much as some people (even RMS) might want to portrary the GPL as some sort of communist plot, it really isn't. It's just a way to keep contributors happy. It turns out that most people don't want their charity abused by some crass corporation.
It also has the nice side effect that it allows for those same crass corporations to collaborate with some level of trust.
"Regular programmers" can easily exploit GNU in their own commercial offerings. The idea that they can't is a lie so absurd that it simply boggles the imagination. Some of the biggest corporatoins on the planet quite safely exploit GNU software and have been doing so for decades.
All that the RMS notion of freedom prevents is some toddler's notion of property where you take someone else's stuff and then declare exclusive ownership over it.
GNU software is by no means the most restrictive kind out there. The commercial stuff that programmers build off of are much more burdensome. This "toddler's dilemma" never seems to occur with commercial derived products. It never occurs to anyone to even whine about it.
The GPL and LGPL don't demand anything more of developers than what copyright law already does. That's the beauty of it.
I find it funny that considering all of the hate directed at RMS and the GPL that it took so f*cking long to replace gcc. You would think that all of these flaming corporate shills would have gotten together at some point sooner than this and "gotten things done".
GNU even managed to get it's own kernel built faster than the anti-GPL whiners managed to replace gcc.
Clearly the ignorant gits that want to perpetuate corporate friendly (and Microsoft friendly) urban legends have never actually tried any of this stuff before. A PC, a real PC, will just treat the HDMI port as yet another output. A TV is also nothing special. It will just treat your PC as just another set top box.
Encryption is NOT required. It's an available OPTION if you happen to be foolish enough to have something like a Sony BluRay player (which ironically happens to run Linux).
There is really nothing distinctive about a "television" any more.
I can do all of that on Linux without a "protected path" of any kind. The same is true for MacOS.
> Pfft can't do anything via HDMI without HDCP to keep movie studios happy.
Sure you can. This is how you can connect Macs and PCs running Linux to a TV with an HDMI port. I am not quite sure who they were supposed to be pandering to with this move. Hooking up an HDMI connection should be a simple thing that requires permission from no one. Shouldn't matter if it's wired or wireless.
...which I achieve by taking stock Ubuntu and installing Openbox.
Alternately, I could use the Debian minimal image and install Openbox on top of that.
There is nothing "super easy" about installing an operating system when it comes to your average n00b. They can barely handle a windows style installer or downloading things with a web browser.
The only reason they can even run Windows is because it's pre-installed and they get plenty of free tech support from friends and family. The same goes for MacOS to.
Besides, it's only trolls that are even aware of "1001 distros" anyways. Most normal people just focus on what the first page of a Google search would tell them.
Except they don't want to "protect their rights". They want to steal ours.
> They would go broke. The reason all of the sensors are there is because when they didn't have sensors, and some farmer misused they tool and got hurt, they sued the manufacturer
Quit being such a corporate tool.
The tort aspect of this is likely completely irrelevant since these are likely highly self reliant types used to fending for themselves for various reasons. Even in the city, this excuse "but we will get sued" is usually just bullshit. Lazy people are just trying to take advantage of the pervasive anti-lawyer propaganda.
Quit swimming in the kool-aid.
My local authorities have never mandated that cars be as proprietary as possible. All they are interested in is certain measurable quantities of chemicals. They care squat for how that it actually accomplished.
Quite right. I feel the same about my point-and-shoot camera. It is not broken so I won't "fix" it. I do occasionally pine for a more capable camera but I don't really want to lug such a beast around.
The problem with "just mashing a button" is that quite often that isn't nearly good enough. Even if you are treating a more dedicated camera in the same way as a phone, it simply has more interesting capabilities.
Anything beyond a carefully curated still life is going to be out of a phone camera's capabilities.
It really doesn't matter how easy it is to create a big blurry blob. That's not anything you want to actually keep.
> Really, the only thing my SLR does better than my phone is Optics, which makes distance & low-light photos possible.
That's kind of like saying that the only thing that other cameras (not just SLR) do better is EVERYTHING.
There's also something to be said for a better and dedicated interface on a real camera. Controls that can be operated with less conscious futzing.
> Nobody wants to pay higher prices for a product.
Incorrect. Conspicuous consumers that want to appear richer than they actually are LOVE to pay higher prices for a product. That also goes for any "luxury" brand that any fanboy will try to dredge up as a comparison to Apple products.
"Seeing is deceiving...."
Someone else is already offering this sort of service (Sling TV).
There's much less reason for anyone to be up to no good in Plano. It's a nice respectable middle class suburb. It's not festering urban decay. That means less junkies and less crime.
> In the same way, are the musicians going to pay for that $10,000-a-day studio
According to the contract they will.
That's the kicker. Someone else said it. Label musicians are treated like employees when it comes to the masters but they are responsible for all of the production costs.
The label is little more than a specialty bank.
This one.
Those that don't have enough talent to actually create are actually the ones that can be completely taken out of the equation. This is especially true for modern forms of music that aren't dependent on large backing bands full of relatively mediocre performers.
Except a mere performer isn't writing anything. Their contribution to the creative process is minimal.
They are not comparable to your average programmer.
They are more like someone that types in a program from a magazine.
The OP is rightly making an important distinction between actual artists and mere performers and you are trying to muddle it again with bad analogies.
...and if you actually read the label you will likely find that it is water plus concentrates.
That's not quite the same thing.
Like pretty much anything else, the real thing really doesn't look or taste like those food like substances in bright packages that most people are so fond of buynig.
You can't eat unlimited quantities of vegetables. Eventually you fill up. Try to push past that point and you will likely just throw everything back up.
You won't get fat off of vegetables because we aren't terribly good at digesting them.
You may not be able to get the pound of lard down either. Although it's certainly got more energy than a pound of vegetables.