Only thing is, they didn't need the passports after their suicide mission.
Now consider a different kind of crime commited on an airplane, for example a murder. How hard is it to identify the killer after he/she has stepped of a plane? I'm sure everyone would aggree it's a lot easier to do. Why? Because you know exactly who was on that plane.
Being anonymous gives you more freedom - you can do anything you want. Even commit a crime and get away with it. Not being anonymous takes that freedom away. But your freedom is defined by your government. If your government thinks you should not have the right to free speech, then it has no problems making it prohibited by law.
Savage 2 doesn't have vehicles. The penny arcade strip mostly mirrors the experience for pilots there. Though I'm inclined to think that the reason is actually unbalanced gameplay.
Why do you think that we'd have had WWIII, if it wasn't for the US and the USSR both having developed nuclear weapons? Both preferred popaganda and overthrowing governments using the country's own people, rather than fighting directly with that country, which was still possile since both countries could drop an atomic bomb on any other country and get away with it.
Maybe they do now,
in this decadent era of
Lite beer, hand calculators and "user-friendly" software
but back in the Good Old Days,
when the term "software" sounded funny
and Real Computers were made out of drums and vacuum tubes,
Real Programmers wrote in machine code.
Not Fortran. Not RATFOR. Not, even, assembly language.
Machine Code.
Raw, unadorned, inscrutable hexadecimal numbers.
Directly.
Lest a whole new generation of programmers
grow up in ignorance of this glorious past,
I feel duty-bound to describe,
as best I can through the generation gap,
how a Real Programmer wrote code.
I'll call him Mel,
because that was his name.
I first met Mel when I went to work for Royal McBee Computer Corp.,
a now-defunct subsidiary of the typewriter company.
The firm manufactured the LGP-30,
a small, cheap (by the standards of the day)
drum-memory computer,
and had just started to manufacture
the RPC-4000, a much-improved,
bigger, better, faster -- drum-memory computer.
Cores cost too much,
and weren't here to stay, anyway.
(That's why you haven't heard of the company, or the computer.)
I had been hired to write a Fortran compiler
for this new marvel and Mel was my guide to its wonders.
Mel didn't approve of compilers.
"If a program can't rewrite its own code,"
he asked, "what good is it?"
Mel had written,
in hexadecimal,
the most popular computer program the company owned.
It ran on the LGP-30
and played blackjack with potential customers
at computer shows.
Its effect was always dramatic.
The LGP-30 booth was packed at every show,
and the IBM salesmen stood around
talking to each other.
Whether or not this actually sold computers
was a question we never discussed.
Mel's job was to re-write
the blackjack program for the RPC-4000.
(Port? What does that mean?)
The new computer had a one-plus-one
addressing scheme,
in which each machine instruction,
in addition to the operation code
and the
What about the fourth option? People design stuff for fun or because they need something better than what they have now. Works for linux and many other open source projects, you know.
>Physical objects should go into the capsule, not data. I second that, though for different reasons. You cannot guarantee that any storage medium that exists now will exist in 16 years. Also, you cannot guarantee that the electrical outlets won't change, so you can't put a netbook in there either. It's best to simply do it the old way.
All the web-designers really need to do to get rid of IE is use this:
<!--[if IE]> <H1> You are using a non-standard compliant browser. This web-site requires a standards-compliant browser such as <a href="http://getfirefox.com">Mozilla Firefox</a> or <a href="http://opera.com">Opera</a></h1> <![endif]-->
Sadly, web-designers try to stay compatible with IE which in turn makes it good enough for to view the web most people.
The author himself deserves the title of Captain Obvious. It's not like this is the first report on who contributes to the kernel that was released by the Linux Foundation...
Actually, LGPL is for shared libraries, what GPL is for hardware and proprieatary APIs. GPL doesn't require your own code to only use hardware with an open architecture or software that is not open source, thus software available under GPL is able to run in Windows and make use of different hardware. If GPL had imposed such a restriction, then it would be pretty unpopular, I imagine.
Here's another case in point: Being the free enthusiast that you are you develop a popular program. Say an open source word processor. It's free, and is quite popular in its niche. Now if you have created a program for yourself that fully serves your needs, you can release the code with a 2 clause BSD license.
If, however, you want to compete with other software makers, and you release the code with a BSD license, then any of your competitors is able to take parts or all of your code and use it in their products without ever releasing anything of theirs to the public. In the end, their software will always be better than yours because they build upon your work. Since their software is better, more people will be using it instead of your software, especially if the software is cheap (and your software will be of great aid to that). More users of your competitors' proprietary products will mean less testers and less possible developers for your open sourced software, which in turn means lower quality. Now how will this help spread free software?
Also take a look at the number of embedded devices and the number of super computers that run BSD (the FreeBSD kernel is released under a two-clause license, that is the highest permissiveness). Linux runs on many more embedded devices and on many more super computers, because the companies that embraced open source, are able to use the contributions of others, contribute themselves and make sure that nobody will turn their contribution against them by developing a closed source product with their code.
And about the ZFS being released under CDDL which in turn is incompatible with GPL: ever wondered how companies like Qt software were able to release Qt under a dual license and why Sun didn't? Or why Sun didn't release ZFS under a 2 clause BSD license, which is compatible with both, the CDDL and the GPL The correct answer is: Sun wanted to gain a marketing edge. It's no different than releasing the ZFS as closed source (from the marketing point of view).
>The two main ways to monetarize and support OSS projects is giving support and ads But these two ways aren't the only ones. And it isn't like ubuntu can only be monetized in those two ways (one of which includes taking revenue from firefox without contributing much if anything back to the project)
The guys that created the app had to do the same, no?
If you own an iPhone and want that game for free as in beer - the source is available to you. If you don't want to pay for the SDK, well, you should've thought about that before you bought the damn phone.
>If you RTFA, it sounds like Lie suggested it because it's a Good Ideaâ rather than because he wanted to see Opera on it. Of course he suggested it because it's a good idea and not because he wants more exposure for his browser. I mean we all know how hard it is to actually go to opera.com and download the damn thing, don't we?/sarcasm
Slashdot Mirror
With the current trends, North Korea is probably going to be the rotten egg.
No, autopackage is a package format much like rpm, only for portable (between various linux systems) packages
Only thing is, they didn't need the passports after their suicide mission.
Now consider a different kind of crime commited on an airplane, for example a murder. How hard is it to identify the killer after he/she has stepped of a plane? I'm sure everyone would aggree it's a lot easier to do. Why? Because you know exactly who was on that plane.
Being anonymous gives you more freedom - you can do anything you want. Even commit a crime and get away with it. Not being anonymous takes that freedom away. But your freedom is defined by your government. If your government thinks you should not have the right to free speech, then it has no problems making it prohibited by law.
Yeah, I could really have used those $15 that running Linux would save me..
D'oh! I meant the experience for pilots in Battlefield 2.
Savage 2 doesn't have vehicles. The penny arcade strip mostly mirrors the experience for pilots there. Though I'm inclined to think that the reason is actually unbalanced gameplay.
>Windows is the most secure system in the entire world
Yes it is! Even Microsoft admitted that. Oh, wait...
Why do you think that we'd have had WWIII, if it wasn't for the US and the USSR both having developed nuclear weapons? Both preferred popaganda and overthrowing governments using the country's own people, rather than fighting directly with that country, which was still possile since both countries could drop an atomic bomb on any other country and get away with it.
I guess this answers the question of whether the old saying "Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are" is true.
I wonder if it's a pirated MS paint...
Real Programmers write in Fortran.
Maybe they do now,
in this decadent era of
Lite beer, hand calculators and "user-friendly" software
but back in the Good Old Days,
when the term "software" sounded funny
and Real Computers were made out of drums and vacuum tubes,
Real Programmers wrote in machine code.
Not Fortran. Not RATFOR. Not, even, assembly language.
Machine Code.
Raw, unadorned, inscrutable hexadecimal numbers.
Directly.
Lest a whole new generation of programmers
grow up in ignorance of this glorious past,
I feel duty-bound to describe,
as best I can through the generation gap,
how a Real Programmer wrote code.
I'll call him Mel,
because that was his name.
I first met Mel when I went to work for Royal McBee Computer Corp.,
a now-defunct subsidiary of the typewriter company.
The firm manufactured the LGP-30,
a small, cheap (by the standards of the day)
drum-memory computer,
and had just started to manufacture
the RPC-4000, a much-improved,
bigger, better, faster -- drum-memory computer.
Cores cost too much,
and weren't here to stay, anyway.
(That's why you haven't heard of the company, or the computer.)
I had been hired to write a Fortran compiler
for this new marvel and Mel was my guide to its wonders.
Mel didn't approve of compilers.
"If a program can't rewrite its own code,"
he asked, "what good is it?"
Mel had written,
in hexadecimal,
the most popular computer program the company owned.
It ran on the LGP-30
and played blackjack with potential customers
at computer shows.
Its effect was always dramatic.
The LGP-30 booth was packed at every show,
and the IBM salesmen stood around
talking to each other.
Whether or not this actually sold computers
was a question we never discussed.
Mel's job was to re-write
the blackjack program for the RPC-4000.
(Port? What does that mean?)
The new computer had a one-plus-one
addressing scheme,
in which each machine instruction,
in addition to the operation code
and the
What about the fourth option? People design stuff for fun or because they need something better than what they have now. Works for linux and many other open source projects, you know.
Mod this up!
>Physical objects should go into the capsule, not data.
I second that, though for different reasons. You cannot guarantee that any storage medium that exists now will exist in 16 years. Also, you cannot guarantee that the electrical outlets won't change, so you can't put a netbook in there either. It's best to simply do it the old way.
All the web-designers really need to do to get rid of IE is use this:
<!--[if IE]>
<H1> You are using a non-standard compliant browser. This web-site requires a standards-compliant browser such as <a href="http://getfirefox.com">Mozilla Firefox</a> or <a href="http://opera.com">Opera</a></h1>
<![endif]-->
Sadly, web-designers try to stay compatible with IE which in turn makes it good enough for to view the web most people.
Ahh... so that's what Obama's secret identity is!
The author himself deserves the title of Captain Obvious. It's not like this is the first report on who contributes to the kernel that was released by the Linux Foundation...
Fix Wikipedia - it's easier. You can even mention this discussion as a source :)
Actually, LGPL is for shared libraries, what GPL is for hardware and proprieatary APIs. GPL doesn't require your own code to only use hardware with an open architecture or software that is not open source, thus software available under GPL is able to run in Windows and make use of different hardware. If GPL had imposed such a restriction, then it would be pretty unpopular, I imagine.
Here's another case in point:
Being the free enthusiast that you are you develop a popular program. Say an open source word processor. It's free, and is quite popular in its niche. Now if you have created a program for yourself that fully serves your needs, you can release the code with a 2 clause BSD license.
If, however, you want to compete with other software makers, and you release the code with a BSD license, then any of your competitors is able to take parts or all of your code and use it in their products without ever releasing anything of theirs to the public. In the end, their software will always be better than yours because they build upon your work. Since their software is better, more people will be using it instead of your software, especially if the software is cheap (and your software will be of great aid to that). More users of your competitors' proprietary products will mean less testers and less possible developers for your open sourced software, which in turn means lower quality. Now how will this help spread free software?
Also take a look at the number of embedded devices and the number of super computers that run BSD (the FreeBSD kernel is released under a two-clause license, that is the highest permissiveness). Linux runs on many more embedded devices and on many more super computers, because the companies that embraced open source, are able to use the contributions of others, contribute themselves and make sure that nobody will turn their contribution against them by developing a closed source product with their code.
And about the ZFS being released under CDDL which in turn is incompatible with GPL: ever wondered how companies like Qt software were able to release Qt under a dual license and why Sun didn't? Or why Sun didn't release ZFS under a 2 clause BSD license, which is compatible with both, the CDDL and the GPL The correct answer is: Sun wanted to gain a marketing edge. It's no different than releasing the ZFS as closed source (from the marketing point of view).
>The two main ways to monetarize and support OSS projects is giving support and ads
But these two ways aren't the only ones. And it isn't like ubuntu can only be monetized in those two ways (one of which includes taking revenue from firefox without contributing much if anything back to the project)
And someone born not as an american citizen could still become the president of the United States, if they hide their _real_ birth certificate.
</paranoid_dellusions>
The guys that created the app had to do the same, no?
If you own an iPhone and want that game for free as in beer - the source is available to you. If you don't want to pay for the SDK, well, you should've thought about that before you bought the damn phone.
>If you RTFA, it sounds like Lie suggested it because it's a Good Ideaâ rather than because he wanted to see Opera on it. /sarcasm
Of course he suggested it because it's a good idea and not because he wants more exposure for his browser. I mean we all know how hard it is to actually go to opera.com and download the damn thing, don't we?
Apparently, someone disagrees with you on that, agreeing that they should be able to mod posts as Troll if they disagree with them :)