Yeah, you can still download the source code for the glory of reading it. And then you can't compile it unless you comply with Google's Oracle-like proprietary and restrictive license.
Those statistics include all kinds of Microsoft mobile OSes, including Windows Mobile and Windows Phone 7, which have been around for a long time, and in particular, one is as old as Bada, while the other is much older.
Samsung Bada phones cost about 20% less than Samsung Android phones based on equivalent hardware (see the Wave 3 vs the Galaxy S Plus for instance). People who buy phones for their out-of-the-box features might be interested in the saving.
As soon as you obtain a copy of it, you can copy, modify and use Red Hat's stuff without paying. It's free as in beer. It's completely compatible with open source.
In less free countries, Red Hat can not distribute patented code under the GPL license. Try to play an MP3 file on your Red Hat-developed Fedora distribution, you're in for a surprise.
Why would paying somebody to do a job make it more acceptable to reproach him with harsh words? A employee-employer relationship is a peer to peer exchange between somehone who has money and someone who has a skill, which if anything should require even more politeness, given that it usually happens between two persons who have no affective closeness.
On the other hand, friends are frank when they get angry. If you look for instance at what happens, say, in an amateur football team (no money involved) when one of the members makes a mistake that puts the whole team at disadvantage, you'll see similar reactions, and nobody would ever think of writing a slashdot story about it.
One can disapprove the use of language that Linus often makes, but the concept is orthogonal to whether he's paying the people he yells at or not.
It's main purpose : being the bogeyman for governments for unpopular laws ("Sorry, we must do that. Ze EU said so.")
It's 100% true that governments use the EU as a justification for unpopular laws. But this tells more about the governments than about the EU itself.
More than 40000 people ^H^H^H^H^H^H assholes are leeching tax payers money for doing nothing important or worthy
Wait, until now you've said that the EU has the power to force your government to pass unpopular laws, and now you say they do "nothing important"? If you send, as you call them, assholes to the EU, that's because you elected them (usually, the national parties try to shovel into the EU parliament their members who didn't manage to get elected in some national assembly). Next time be more careful.
(except defining the exact radius of the curvature of a banana and how a cucumber should look like. Reeeeeaaallly important stuff).
They're laws that are used to regulate the import of foreign products, usually in order to defend the local ones through import taxes. Look at the countries outside the EU, and you'll se that they have national laws doing the same kind of stuff that the EU does for its member states.
I applaud them for giving their citizens a referendum about Britain's future within (or outside) the EU...
Now we agree, the britons should decide once and for all what they want to do when they're grown up.
My country, too, which is in western Europe, is known for letting wiretapping data fall into the wrong hands. We have had cases of politicians looking for information to use against their enemies, of wealthy people keeping an eye on competitors, employees or even customers, or hackers publishing stolen data which wasn't locked down carefully enough.
Wiretapping is important, the evidence collected through it helped identify many criminals (and save many innocents). But it must be done only under the warrant of a judicial authority, and it should be performed only by trusted (and accountable) professionals. That's what the constitutions of many europen states say, and the reason they do is not because, back in the time when they were written, mass surveillance was not as easy as it is today.
In countries where the possession of firearms is regulated, the legal owner must keep his weapons in a safe. If he's caught storing his weapons unsafely, his weapons can get confiscated and his permission to own them revoked.
It's interesting to note that when the prescribed ethical ideas don't match the current values of the middle class, cf. "ye cannot serve God and mammon", "it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God", "you resist not evil: but whoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also" - then they are happily ignored.
This past year over 20 children died the slow death of heatstroke/hypothermia after their parents locked them in cars. A toddler died because his mother was an idiot and let him stand on a ledge at a zoo. Where is your outrage over those deaths?
Where exactly did he say that he wouldn't be outraged over deaths like the ones you describe?
Anyway, if you as a parent "are an idiot", there are laws in place which, depending on your level of "idiocy", can even lead to your children being taken away from you. Law is there to protect the innocent.
More people have been killed this year (including children) by drunk or distracted driving. Since alcohol doesn't benefit society, should we bring back prohibition for the safety of the children?
That's exactly the point. Driving is regulated. Drinking alcohol and driving is forbidden, and if you do it, your driving license can be revoked. Which is exactly what should happen with firearms. Their possession should be regulated, so that you can own a hunting rifle if you prove that you're not a mentally unstable person and that you're not the kind of guy who kills people who scratch his car, but it's otherwise hard to own other kinds of weapons.
How about instead of banning things, we focus our resources on figuring out why people go nuts and try to kill children?
How about doing both? Why do you think the two options are mutually exclusive?
If someone wants to kill people, they don't need guns.
Guns make it much, much, much easier - which is why gun possession is regulated in many countries of the world.
That's their job and function. Have you ever heard a lawyer ask a judge to declare his defendant guilty, because he feels he deserves it? Would you pay for such a lawyer?
Unions are the defenders of one side, and only of that side. Such defense is needed because without unions, the weak part (the workers) gets abused, in the ways we witnessed in Western countries during the industrial revolution, which are exactly the same we see in non-Western countries today: child labour, miserable wages, a discrete chance of dying on the work place.
The point is that Apple (and NeXT) took BSD code to make a different operating system. Running a different kernel, with a different binary format, designed to support a graphics environment which is completely alien from BSD's native X11. You can't run BSD binaries on OS X without an emulation layer. You can't run OS X binaries on BSD without an emulation layer. I have the surname of my father, I am not my father.
It has a completely different kernel design and a vastly different userspace. If OS X counts as a measure of the relevance of BSD because it contains BSD-derived code, then even most Linux installations 'are BSD'.
I used to be a renewable energy supporter until I saw what wind power farms really look like.
In a place near me, they built 63 turbines, 80 meters high. All the turbines had to be connected, between them and with the existing road infrastructure, by asphalted roads, 5 meters wide, complete with sidewalks, of course supported by concrete infrastructure. All of this has been built in one of the few places where the man's hand hadn't arrived yet, the top of our highest mountain range. A place where, by law, you couldn't build a shed - yet their builders were able to override all environmental legislation, because the energy they are going to produce is "green".
All the mountain tops were smoothened and replaced with a backbone road, and in particular one of the highest peaks was completely flattened and replaced with a power station which gathers the wires coming from the turbines. The tons of rock and dirt that were extracted during the leveling, were dumped inside the nearby torrents' beds.
An untouched, virgin environment (one of the few remaining around here), was irremediably destroyed for good in just a couple of years, after lasting for aeons. All of this was done in order to produce a grand total of 56.7 MW! For comparison, that's just 4.4 % of power produced by the nearby decades-old oil power station - when the wind blows.
The local population obtained virtually no jobs from this whole project, getting instead a royalty of 1.5% over the power production. I find ironical that their economy possibly gets more income from the tourism made up by hunters.
As a true environmentalist, give me nuclear power anytime. Perhaps in large countries such as the USA and Russia, there's plenty of space to build huge wind farms without losing much of value, but here in the old world, forms of energy collection with such a low density would be the coup de grâce for our territories.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you can still download the source code for the glory of reading it. And then you can't compile it unless you comply with Google's Oracle-like proprietary and restrictive license.
Those statistics include all kinds of Microsoft mobile OSes, including Windows Mobile and Windows Phone 7, which have been around for a long time, and in particular, one is as old as Bada, while the other is much older.
Samsung Bada phones cost about 20% less than Samsung Android phones based on equivalent hardware (see the Wave 3 vs the Galaxy S Plus for instance). People who buy phones for their out-of-the-box features might be interested in the saving.
In less free countries, Red Hat can not distribute patented code under the GPL license. Try to play an MP3 file on your Red Hat-developed Fedora distribution, you're in for a surprise.
Free as in freedom implies free as in beer. Having to pay a fee to obtain freedom is completely incompatible with open source.
On the other hand, friends are frank when they get angry. If you look for instance at what happens, say, in an amateur football team (no money involved) when one of the members makes a mistake that puts the whole team at disadvantage, you'll see similar reactions, and nobody would ever think of writing a slashdot story about it.
One can disapprove the use of language that Linus often makes, but the concept is orthogonal to whether he's paying the people he yells at or not.
In that case the adapter comes for free in the box, no € 19 involved.
Indeed, they let you charge over microusb without extorting from you 19 € for the privilege.
Says Austria. It's written in the second line of the summary.
It's main purpose : being the bogeyman for governments for unpopular laws ("Sorry, we must do that. Ze EU said so.")
It's 100% true that governments use the EU as a justification for unpopular laws. But this tells more about the governments than about the EU itself.
More than 40000 people ^H^H^H^H^H^H assholes are leeching tax payers money for doing nothing important or worthy
Wait, until now you've said that the EU has the power to force your government to pass unpopular laws, and now you say they do "nothing important"? If you send, as you call them, assholes to the EU, that's because you elected them (usually, the national parties try to shovel into the EU parliament their members who didn't manage to get elected in some national assembly). Next time be more careful.
(except defining the exact radius of the curvature of a banana and how a cucumber should look like. Reeeeeaaallly important stuff).
They're laws that are used to regulate the import of foreign products, usually in order to defend the local ones through import taxes. Look at the countries outside the EU, and you'll se that they have national laws doing the same kind of stuff that the EU does for its member states.
I applaud them for giving their citizens a referendum about Britain's future within (or outside) the EU...
Now we agree, the britons should decide once and for all what they want to do when they're grown up.
Wiretapping is important, the evidence collected through it helped identify many criminals (and save many innocents). But it must be done only under the warrant of a judicial authority, and it should be performed only by trusted (and accountable) professionals. That's what the constitutions of many europen states say, and the reason they do is not because, back in the time when they were written, mass surveillance was not as easy as it is today.
In countries where the possession of firearms is regulated, the legal owner must keep his weapons in a safe. If he's caught storing his weapons unsafely, his weapons can get confiscated and his permission to own them revoked.
HTC did, and have had a similar nosedive as Nokia
Actually, HTC bet on Windows Phone too, so your example works in both ways.
It's interesting to note that when the prescribed ethical ideas don't match the current values of the middle class, cf. "ye cannot serve God and mammon", "it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God", "you resist not evil: but whoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also" - then they are happily ignored.
"Ordinary users"? I guess they're those who don't use a computer to get work done, and therefore would be better off with a tablet anyway.
How about a compromise, like banning guns for people with mental illness?
Where exactly did he say that he wouldn't be outraged over deaths like the ones you describe?
Anyway, if you as a parent "are an idiot", there are laws in place which, depending on your level of "idiocy", can even lead to your children being taken away from you. Law is there to protect the innocent.
That's exactly the point. Driving is regulated. Drinking alcohol and driving is forbidden, and if you do it, your driving license can be revoked. Which is exactly what should happen with firearms. Their possession should be regulated, so that you can own a hunting rifle if you prove that you're not a mentally unstable person and that you're not the kind of guy who kills people who scratch his car, but it's otherwise hard to own other kinds of weapons.
How about doing both? Why do you think the two options are mutually exclusive?
Guns make it much, much, much easier - which is why gun possession is regulated in many countries of the world.
Unions are the defenders of one side, and only of that side. Such defense is needed because without unions, the weak part (the workers) gets abused, in the ways we witnessed in Western countries during the industrial revolution, which are exactly the same we see in non-Western countries today: child labour, miserable wages, a discrete chance of dying on the work place.
Weren't telephones using a rotary dial in the times when such decisions were made?
my ass.
The point is that Apple (and NeXT) took BSD code to make a different operating system. Running a different kernel, with a different binary format, designed to support a graphics environment which is completely alien from BSD's native X11. You can't run BSD binaries on OS X without an emulation layer. You can't run OS X binaries on BSD without an emulation layer. I have the surname of my father, I am not my father.
It has a completely different kernel design and a vastly different userspace. If OS X counts as a measure of the relevance of BSD because it contains BSD-derived code, then even most Linux installations 'are BSD'.
OS X 'is' not BSD, it's NeXTSTEP with code derived from BSD.
In a place near me, they built 63 turbines, 80 meters high. All the turbines had to be connected, between them and with the existing road infrastructure, by asphalted roads, 5 meters wide, complete with sidewalks, of course supported by concrete infrastructure. All of this has been built in one of the few places where the man's hand hadn't arrived yet, the top of our highest mountain range. A place where, by law, you couldn't build a shed - yet their builders were able to override all environmental legislation, because the energy they are going to produce is "green".
All the mountain tops were smoothened and replaced with a backbone road, and in particular one of the highest peaks was completely flattened and replaced with a power station which gathers the wires coming from the turbines. The tons of rock and dirt that were extracted during the leveling, were dumped inside the nearby torrents' beds.
An untouched, virgin environment (one of the few remaining around here), was irremediably destroyed for good in just a couple of years, after lasting for aeons. All of this was done in order to produce a grand total of 56.7 MW! For comparison, that's just 4.4 % of power produced by the nearby decades-old oil power station - when the wind blows.
The local population obtained virtually no jobs from this whole project, getting instead a royalty of 1.5% over the power production. I find ironical that their economy possibly gets more income from the tourism made up by hunters.
As a true environmentalist, give me nuclear power anytime. Perhaps in large countries such as the USA and Russia, there's plenty of space to build huge wind farms without losing much of value, but here in the old world, forms of energy collection with such a low density would be the coup de grâce for our territories.
...what does it taste like? Scientific progress aside, food should always be a pleasure, that's why we don't eat astronauts' food unless we need to.