Too much buzzwords on your comment. A good code can be made with or without object orientation, parametrized querys and etc, etc, etc. If you think code MUST be "object-oriented" (or needs to use any another shiny new buzzword) to be good, you are very, very wrong... Hell, you can create very good code even using the "evil" GOTO, if you know what you are doing.
In one hour flight I could do it twice or more the way from my house to work and back. That with the fact of being quiet and possibly take up less space than a car when saved creates an interesting way to replace a car
The "overwhelming amount of bullshit required to bid on government contracts" is to keep the small business out of the way from the big sharks... err... business.
The problem is not Copyright itself, is the dumb, ridiculous use of it. Is OK to patent something like "new type of gas turbine" (and important, you show a working sample that is really a innovation), but is dumb (and dishonest) to patent something generic and obvious like "rectangle with rounded corners".
Usually judges are completely stupid on IT issues, they think they have "supreme power" over the internet as they believe they have "supreme power" over the material world... But nonsense decisions like this are usually caused by simple bribery.
I agree. Is useless to use in a review a set of expensive hardware that only 10% or less have, is a plague that happens all the time for example in reviews of GPUs.
The problem is not exactly the need to type things on Linux... Is more the need to type obscure commands with ever more obscure options to do things that you may can do in a more easy way using a GUI. And in this example remember that:
1) The average user is not an expert. He just wants to use the computer to do his job and does not want (or are unable to) memorize every single existent Unix command (and their options) to do so. And worst, many MAN pages are sloppy on important details.
2) The average GUI on Linux is crap. Many times you need to use console because the GUI version of the application was so sloppy that it is practically useless.
And add to this that you can have the best hardware, but if he is used by a semi-idiot, is almost useless against a cheap hardware used by a professional soldier.
Read again what I sayed, read carefully... Honestly, if you think that things like "patenting the color red" or "patenting a common shape" is acceptable, you are dumb.
We need to simply ignore this obvious "patents", and shoot the lawyers with a shotgun at pointblank (just in case). Is the only way to stop this madness.
Well, on brazilian portuguese "wasting" (jogar fora) and "spending" (gastar) is not the same thing. "Jogar fora" (wasting) on brazilian is to throw away something, throw on junk, put on garbage, etc. While the word "gastar" (spending) means using your money to buy something or using resources (the tree) to do something (making paper). Extending the original sentence she would like as "We will avoid use of paper, spending paper on printers need us to spend trees to make paper".
You uses "wasting" (jogar fora) if the idea is "you are wasting resources, putting then on the garbage" on portuguese, but if the idea is more or less "you are using resources on a thing that is not waste", you uses the "spending" (gastando).
Yep, but if your idea is to translate a full text (like one comment), you are in trouble. Because this I do not make long comments, English is not my native language but I know sufficient to see that the "english version" from my brazilian comment is at best, unreadable rubbish if you use only Google translator.
Maybe, but in Portuguese you loses the meaning... "Wasting paper" translates to "jogar fora papel", "jogar fora papel" is not the same thing as "gastar papel".
... until this tech can correctly translate from Brazilian to English?
As an example, this sentence in Portuguese:
"Vamos evitar o uso de papel, gastar papel implica em gastar árvores"
Google translates as:
"We avoid the use of paper, wasting paper implies spending trees"
Here we have some problems of grammar, changed words for no reason and wrong use of future. A more correct translation is*:
"We will avoid the use of paper, spending paper implies spending trees"
br> * Note: Is not a "exact" translation. English is too simple to pass the same idea in the same way as using Portuguese.
Well, for you have an idea, LibreOffice can not even render the text properly on my linux box. (and yes, freetype is correctly installed and KDE displays perfect fonts). And OpenOffice is even worst in this job.
Slashdot Mirror
It is because of people like you that the year of linux on the desktop will always be current year + 1...
Are you on drugs? Seek medical assistance, urgent.
Shutdown Brein instead.
Too much buzzwords on your comment. A good code can be made with or without object orientation, parametrized querys and etc, etc, etc. If you think code MUST be "object-oriented" (or needs to use any another shiny new buzzword) to be good, you are very, very wrong... Hell, you can create very good code even using the "evil" GOTO, if you know what you are doing.
In one hour flight I could do it twice or more the way from my house to work and back. That with the fact of being quiet and possibly take up less space than a car when saved creates an interesting way to replace a car
The "overwhelming amount of bullshit required to bid on government contracts" is to keep the small business out of the way from the big sharks... err... business.
The problem is not Copyright itself, is the dumb, ridiculous use of it. Is OK to patent something like "new type of gas turbine" (and important, you show a working sample that is really a innovation), but is dumb (and dishonest) to patent something generic and obvious like "rectangle with rounded corners".
Usually judges are completely stupid on IT issues, they think they have "supreme power" over the internet as they believe they have "supreme power" over the material world... But nonsense decisions like this are usually caused by simple bribery.
...How is it possible for the USPTO to grant the patent when there is prior art (which doesn't matter where it was done first)...
Money.
I remember that too. The windows 7 beta had a significantly better performance than the RTM version.
I agree. Is useless to use in a review a set of expensive hardware that only 10% or less have, is a plague that happens all the time for example in reviews of GPUs.
The problem is not exactly the need to type things on Linux... Is more the need to type obscure commands with ever more obscure options to do things that you may can do in a more easy way using a GUI. And in this example remember that:
1) The average user is not an expert. He just wants to use the computer to do his job and does not want (or are unable to) memorize every single existent Unix command (and their options) to do so. And worst, many MAN pages are sloppy on important details.
2) The average GUI on Linux is crap. Many times you need to use console because the GUI version of the application was so sloppy that it is practically useless.
And add to this that you can have the best hardware, but if he is used by a semi-idiot, is almost useless against a cheap hardware used by a professional soldier.
Read again what I sayed, read carefully... Honestly, if you think that things like "patenting the color red" or "patenting a common shape" is acceptable, you are dumb.
We need to simply ignore this obvious "patents", and shoot the lawyers with a shotgun at pointblank (just in case). Is the only way to stop this madness.
Apple soon will patent the "device to enable communication between two (or more) people" itself =)
Well, on brazilian portuguese "wasting" (jogar fora) and "spending" (gastar) is not the same thing. "Jogar fora" (wasting) on brazilian is to throw away something, throw on junk, put on garbage, etc. While the word "gastar" (spending) means using your money to buy something or using resources (the tree) to do something (making paper). Extending the original sentence she would like as "We will avoid use of paper, spending paper on printers need us to spend trees to make paper".
You uses "wasting" (jogar fora) if the idea is "you are wasting resources, putting then on the garbage" on portuguese, but if the idea is more or less "you are using resources on a thing that is not waste", you uses the "spending" (gastando).
Exact.
Yep, but if your idea is to translate a full text (like one comment), you are in trouble. Because this I do not make long comments, English is not my native language but I know sufficient to see that the "english version" from my brazilian comment is at best, unreadable rubbish if you use only Google translator.
:))
(because this I use the sig below
Maybe, but in Portuguese you loses the meaning... "Wasting paper" translates to "jogar fora papel", "jogar fora papel" is not the same thing as "gastar papel".
... until this tech can correctly translate from Brazilian to English?
As an example, this sentence in Portuguese:
"Vamos evitar o uso de papel, gastar papel implica em gastar árvores"
Google translates as:
"We avoid the use of paper, wasting paper implies spending trees"
Here we have some problems of grammar, changed words for no reason and wrong use of future. A more correct translation is*:
"We will avoid the use of paper, spending paper implies spending trees" br>
* Note: Is not a "exact" translation. English is too simple to pass the same idea in the same way as using Portuguese.
Already online, and reading Slashdot for interesting upgrades
I never have mod points when i find a comment worth of then... Interesting and informative comment, Migraineman.
Well, for you have an idea, LibreOffice can not even render the text properly on my linux box. (and yes, freetype is correctly installed and KDE displays perfect fonts). And OpenOffice is even worst in this job.
It's because they can be killed by angry home users.