Why not just be honest and label the sides pro-abortion and anti-abortion? I get the idea that you have to present your ideas using the most favorable words possible in order to make it seem like you are naturally correct, but we're almost all adults here so let's not play intellectually dishonest games.
See, you immediately made my own point for me - you showed off an instance where there would be a use, then described yourself as being able to make use of it.
If you had no idea how the technology worked, would the ability to modify the software mean anything to you at all? Most people aren't even aware of the existence of software, beyond vaguely recognizing that the word exists. Its purpose, and origin, and method of working are hidden in murky shadows, never to be divined.
So yeah, it would be great if you could modify the software on older iPods (you actually can, check out rockbox? I think...) and it would be great if you could do whatever you want with any computing device in existence. But it would only be great if you fit into the tiny percentage of people who even know what any of that means.
No, no, no... you don't have to buy the hardware at all. It is strictly a luxury item. Very important distinction. You may want the device, but that is a totally different ball of wax.
I do think the FSF has a good point, I just think that point has a vanishing applicability. When it comes to software freedom, most people simply don't care and never will, so the organization alternates between preaching to the choir and screaming into the wind. Not terribly productive in either case - hence, loony.
Say what you will, but the masses are sheep and they're happy as sheep. You cannot teach them to think, vote, raise children, or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD, only the sheep. And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices.
Come on now. The fact that the vast majority of people have neither the aptitude nor the inclination to have a deep understanding of technology doesn't give you a position of judgment so sweeping.
In any case, I suspect what you mean to say by teaching them to "think, vote, raise children" is to do it they way you would like. That doesn't make you a shepherd and them sheep. It just makes you a douche.
Naturally, considering the bent of/.ers, you have reached +5, Insightful. Is this really insightful? The only way to achieve what you desire is to remove the consumer's freedom to choose which device they wish to support, in favor of only being allowed to choose your favored platforms. What kind of freedom is that, exactly?
The real problem here is that software freedom is only important to a very small percentage of people. Unless the free platform brings significant advantages that general consumers actually care about, such as aesthetics, usability, and choice, it will by necessity be relegated to the niche it currently occupies. You can't just keep telling people that they're wrong and stupid and need to listen to you and expect to get anywhere.
Why does every computing device need to meet this criteria? Consider that question in light of the fact the for 99% of the human population, such an ability would have no use whatsoever.
If software freedom is important to you, don't buy Apple products. If you really need to complain that Apple products work for other people and that's just not right, it comes off as entitled whining.
Creationism is ridiculed because creationism is ridiculous. Such posts get modded up because people with mod points agree, whether on topic or not. It's not really worth a sociology paper or anything.
If you really want to defend creationism on/., I salute your bravery. If you are just trying to figure out why people do what they do, I wish you tremendous amounts of luck.
You know what the best entertainment is? Reading Slashdot. It's really, really cheap, and there is a never ending supply of people who labor under the delusion that they're smart enough to tell everybody else in the world how they should live.
Years of entertainment for damn near no investment at all. Can't be beat.
I considered all of these factors when I started purchasing games on Steam. You know what I realized?
I damn near never replay old games. When I do, I realize that they suck compared to new games. So basically, this "problem" doesn't mean anything to a lot of people out there, most likely. If it does mean something to you, don't use Steam. Problem solved.
Don't forget something incredibly important here - the vast majority of people have no use for software freedoms. They don't write software, they don't understand software, and they don't care about the ethical stance of the people who produced the software they use.
The People are anyone who thinks the right way. Everyone else doesn't count. Depending on who is talking, the grouping changes, but the grouping method never does. Funny, that.
You casually dismissed three vulnerabilities that could lead to arbitrary code execution, two of which live in OSX system libraries. I'm not too sure you're being objective. The other possibility: you are talking straight out your ass.
If companies who serve the general public try to decide what sucks and what doesn't by nerd principles, they will quickly find themselves serving only nerds.
The big problem with serving nerds is that nerds pride themselves on never paying for anything, so serving them is pointless and self-defeating.
Hence, you will always think things suck, because there is no point to bothering to make you happy.
Generally it's a size optimization, and/or obfuscation. There are a few libraries that will run through.js files and do the replacement for you, so you can work with reasonable names in the dev source.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just be honest and label the sides pro-abortion and anti-abortion? I get the idea that you have to present your ideas using the most favorable words possible in order to make it seem like you are naturally correct, but we're almost all adults here so let's not play intellectually dishonest games.
See, you immediately made my own point for me - you showed off an instance where there would be a use, then described yourself as being able to make use of it.
If you had no idea how the technology worked, would the ability to modify the software mean anything to you at all? Most people aren't even aware of the existence of software, beyond vaguely recognizing that the word exists. Its purpose, and origin, and method of working are hidden in murky shadows, never to be divined.
So yeah, it would be great if you could modify the software on older iPods (you actually can, check out rockbox? I think...) and it would be great if you could do whatever you want with any computing device in existence. But it would only be great if you fit into the tiny percentage of people who even know what any of that means.
No, no, no... you don't have to buy the hardware at all. It is strictly a luxury item. Very important distinction. You may want the device, but that is a totally different ball of wax.
I do think the FSF has a good point, I just think that point has a vanishing applicability. When it comes to software freedom, most people simply don't care and never will, so the organization alternates between preaching to the choir and screaming into the wind. Not terribly productive in either case - hence, loony.
i was with you right up until this crap:
Say what you will, but the masses are sheep and they're happy as sheep. You cannot teach them to think, vote, raise children, or use computers responsibly because they DO NOT WANT TO BE THE SHEPHERD, only the sheep. And there will always be a market to sell them sheep-friendly devices.
Come on now. The fact that the vast majority of people have neither the aptitude nor the inclination to have a deep understanding of technology doesn't give you a position of judgment so sweeping.
In any case, I suspect what you mean to say by teaching them to "think, vote, raise children" is to do it they way you would like. That doesn't make you a shepherd and them sheep. It just makes you a douche.
If your point was that you're horrible at making analogies, then yes, you did.
Naturally, considering the bent of /.ers, you have reached +5, Insightful. Is this really insightful? The only way to achieve what you desire is to remove the consumer's freedom to choose which device they wish to support, in favor of only being allowed to choose your favored platforms. What kind of freedom is that, exactly?
The real problem here is that software freedom is only important to a very small percentage of people. Unless the free platform brings significant advantages that general consumers actually care about, such as aesthetics, usability, and choice, it will by necessity be relegated to the niche it currently occupies. You can't just keep telling people that they're wrong and stupid and need to listen to you and expect to get anywhere.
Why does every computing device need to meet this criteria? Consider that question in light of the fact the for 99% of the human population, such an ability would have no use whatsoever.
If software freedom is important to you, don't buy Apple products. If you really need to complain that Apple products work for other people and that's just not right, it comes off as entitled whining.
There are actually a few porn sites that do HTML 5 video right now, essentially for iPhone support. Works fairly well.
Creationism is ridiculed because creationism is ridiculous. Such posts get modded up because people with mod points agree, whether on topic or not. It's not really worth a sociology paper or anything.
If you really want to defend creationism on /., I salute your bravery. If you are just trying to figure out why people do what they do, I wish you tremendous amounts of luck.
You know what the best entertainment is? Reading Slashdot. It's really, really cheap, and there is a never ending supply of people who labor under the delusion that they're smart enough to tell everybody else in the world how they should live.
Years of entertainment for damn near no investment at all. Can't be beat.
I considered all of these factors when I started purchasing games on Steam. You know what I realized?
I damn near never replay old games. When I do, I realize that they suck compared to new games. So basically, this "problem" doesn't mean anything to a lot of people out there, most likely. If it does mean something to you, don't use Steam. Problem solved.
One additional rule covers it:
Don't judge people too harshly for being an asshole.
That's a much harder rule to make work, though. People do love to judge.
Hey, you can justify it however you want. I should have qualified my original statement: the EFF has now lost all credibility to me.
You can't claim moral outrage over a technique in one instance, then use the technique in another. You lose all credibility.
Don't forget something incredibly important here - the vast majority of people have no use for software freedoms. They don't write software, they don't understand software, and they don't care about the ethical stance of the people who produced the software they use.
Holy shit dude that was fucking hilarious.
Ah, the religion of technology. So amazingly worthless.
The People are anyone who thinks the right way. Everyone else doesn't count. Depending on who is talking, the grouping changes, but the grouping method never does. Funny, that.
You casually dismissed three vulnerabilities that could lead to arbitrary code execution, two of which live in OSX system libraries. I'm not too sure you're being objective. The other possibility: you are talking straight out your ass.
I guess my question is which is it?
you could drop the "closed source" part if you wanted to be honest.
You're right, it would be so much better if they slammed something together and rushed it out the door without testing it.
If companies who serve the general public try to decide what sucks and what doesn't by nerd principles, they will quickly find themselves serving only nerds.
The big problem with serving nerds is that nerds pride themselves on never paying for anything, so serving them is pointless and self-defeating.
Hence, you will always think things suck, because there is no point to bothering to make you happy.
Generally it's a size optimization, and/or obfuscation. There are a few libraries that will run through .js files and do the replacement for you, so you can work with reasonable names in the dev source.
Did you just cast Google in the role of the little startup?
When do these mysterious claims come in? Are you confusing ridiculous political arguments on Slashdot with official US statements?