Scientists at the University of the Balearic Isles have analyzed the Marvel Universe and found that it is almost like real society.
Imagine that.. humans living in real society have created fiction that is almost like... real society! Simply amazing! Good thing those research dollars are still being put to good use now that we've got the environment all figured out. So uh.. who gets the patent?
I hate to sound nihilistic, but in the end, we're just another species on this planet that will eventually go extinct.
EXCUSE ME???
I fail to understand why any sentient being would take that perspective on life.
Actually, if you do not believe that there exists a supreme being greater than our universe itself (ie. God) and do not believe that humans have God-given individual eternal souls and do not believe that there is single standard of morality, then his statement makes perfect sense. There can be no meaning in our brief lives if eternity itself lacks meaning. Eventually, even if trillions of years from now, human life will in fact end, whether from the universe re-collapsing into a singularity or expanding infinitely into a state of zero order. Most likely, some other event would destroy us before that. Point being, our physical existance individually and as a species is temporary and you cannot in any way deny this. The question then, is whether there exists a spiritual realm that transcends our physical/mental existance--some way that our choices have eternal consequence and can be judged by an absolute standard of morality. If not, then there is nothing keeping us from living as destructively as we desire--killing, raping, plundering each other and the earth. However, this is not the state of existance as we know it. We live our daily lives as if there is meaning in our existance. I believe there is.
What does this have to do with environmentalism? Because if God exists and he created us and this earth as our home, giving us a standard of moral behavior, then we should respect him, each other, and the earth for the beauty therein and with hope for an eternal meaning in our existance.
It's one thing to support what could eventually be a necessary "embrace and extend" standard, but to focus everything on.Net seems dangerous for GNOME. Imagine that Microsoft really does let other people play in the.Net game. Consider the ramifications to the Open Source movement if proprietary software like MS Office or Photoshop could be used more-or-less 'natively' in Linux using the.Net API provided by Mono. Would laziness set in, slowing projects like OpenOffice and Gimp? Would people still use the free software or would they just give in and use what is more familiar? Without.Net support, people will continue to be forced to use Free Software in many areas, thereby causing them to learn new tools and break ties with proprietary ones.
So it seems to me that supporting.NET is supporting the future of proprietary software simply by enabling it. Another sign of this would be GNOME/Mono moving away from GPL to a "less defensive" license. Microsoft knows that Windows could be doomed in the near future. They also know the power of the Open Source movement and that it has the power to obsolete their entire proprietary business model. IMO, they're using.NET to try to hook people into hybrid free/non-free software so that they'll still have a strong foothold no matter where the market evolves. And if the patent issues get ugly, we could end up paying Microsoft for software that *we* wrote. Sure, GNOME itself could still be free, but if half the Open Source software for it requires.NET modules from Microsoft, licensed at a cost, we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot. A similar analogy would be the DVD crypto mess. You can buy the media, you can write the free software to play it, but you can't legally use them together in the US.
Let me re-emphasize: We do NOT need ANY proprietary software. We do NOT need Microsoft or ANY of their products. All we need is a stable user-developer community. In a word: consultants. That is the future of Open Source in the business world. And it is a good future both for business and free software developers.
Mind informing us what line of work you are self-employed in and how you go about your business. Frankly, it seems your example is one of what not to do. What pitfalls can us 'young'ns' avoid?
Call me apathetic, call me brilliant.... I get paid so that I can run my own server at home and play PlayStation. I enjoy both -- but to think that my work is all that important that it won't get cast aside in a moment is folly.
There's a meaningful existance for ya. Sorry, but that life just won't cut it for many of us, even as inevitable as you try to make it seem.
Sure, I'd love to work in some perfect Nerdvana, but it doesn't exist.
Only because you don't have the balls to make it exist. If you hate the hampster wheel, go start your own company doing consulting or something. You might make less money, but screw it. What's more important to you? Being happy or having expendable income to waste on gas-guzzling autos, bleeding-edge geek toys, and a two story suburban energy drain?
No matter what your take on MS, remember, they are a business, and it MAKES BUSINESS sense for them to do this.
Incorrect, my friend. Many things that make 'business sense' are unethical. It makes good 'business sense' to exploit overseas sweatshop labor to lower manufacturing costs. But that's certainly not ethical.
Amazing. Two morons modded the parent down because they didn't like my (valid) opinion that Nautilus sucks. Lamers. Well, here you go, you idiots: a real troll. Go ahead and waste your mod points on this one too! ahhahaa.. that's one less point you'll get to hurt another thoughtful post because you don't agree with it! ahhahaha.. Mod this down!!! GNOME sucks!!! KDE RULEZ!!! Do you like this approach better?
Right now, KDE has an enormous lead over GNOME with ordinary users. The reason for this is pretty simple: KDE has a unified web/file/desktop browser that is fast, clean, intuitive, and full-featured. Non-technical users, especially prior Windows users, have come to expect this in an interface. They are used to a high degree of object oriented design and a consistent 'look' to the interface. Nautilus is highly lacking in this regard. It is very slow, has clunky web browsing support, is very lacking in basic features / configurability, and does not have a clean unified feel. Because of this, users must switch back and forth between Nautilus and Mozilla/galeon. And Nautilus downright sucks for any sort of GUI file management, thus requiring yet another utility if one desires such functionality. So now you have Nautilus for your desktop icons, Mozilla for web browsing, and something else for file-management. And none of them talk to each other.
In my opinion, if GNOME and KDE want to cooperate in the future, they need to decide on a single object model, a single RPC/IPC mechanism, and a single clipboard system. Judging by KDE's proven success in this area, it only makes sense to use it as the standard rather than break both and start from scratch. Unfortunately, it seems the GNOME people are extremely stubborn about switching to C++. The reason of course, is historical: the old rule of thumb that C is more efficient than C++.. or more accurately, that C++ compilers are slow. This is beginning to change, and no doubt, g++ would be improving much faster if more people were using it.
Or we can just keep going about re-inventing each others' wheels. Pretty silly if you ask me. One other note, the human aspect, is another advantage KDE has. GNOME needs some better unified leadership and goals. Compare, for instance, kdelibs to the dozens of library packages needed to compile GNOME. Having unified releases is a good thing for everyone.
Corel has helped the community on a huge scale, providing the Linux world with versions of Corel Draw and Corel WordPerfect.
Really? Where can I go download them? Where's the source code?
I'm sick of these stupid comments. Proprietary software is NEVER 'helping the community.' It is purely seeking one's own self-interest. I'm not trying to make a moral case here. Just call things as they are, people.
Why would I want to run a hacked up proprietary OS derived from an older version of BSD when I can run the real thing? Or Linux. What's the point? What would you gain? The interface is nothing to raise an eyebrow at in terms of real functionality. It's bloated and cheezy. Yes, those stupid minimize/restore warp animations get old after about.. the 5th time you've seen them. What's the point? Proprietary is dead. Get over it Apple.
Or it could be the disaster that kills Wine / Linux. IFF the WinSource is handed over for technical examination, it will certainly be in a VERY controlled environment and, most likely, subject to non-disclosure agreements or court orders. If copyrighted code from Windows wound up in any part of Linux, then Microsoft would have legal justification to sue distributors everywhere to block all distribution. Followed by suits against every name in the contributors list for the infected projects.
Who says the original code would be used? It's more a matter of 'dirty-room' reverse-engineering of data structures, API 'features', etc. Frankly, the best solution to this whole anti-trust deal would be to force Microsoft to publically disclose all documentation of binary file formats, hidden API features, and anything other proprietary nonsense they've created. That way, Open Source software like Wine and OpenOffice could quickly become 100% compatible with MS products.
Doesn't the FCC have some sort of thing where if a standard is used by x% of the market then it must be publically documented and opened for competition? Couldn't this apply to Windows and Office?
If Amazon had countersued InTouch for the waste of their time and litigation costs, would they have gotten anywhere? Is this a threat they could have waved at InTouch to get them to drop the suit?
The Free Software Foundation announced Thursday the beginning of a new 'software' project known as "gnuCat' and a related project 'CatGNiP'. From RMS's announcement, "Building the perfect feline companion through a collaborative community effort will ensure that the species' genetic code remains free of restrictive licensing and that users will be able to modify and extend their cats to suit their needs.' For example, users of gnuCat will be able to configure the cat's color, size, obesity, and proclivity to scratch furniture, using a simple ncurses menu system. gnuCat developers are already discussing a new way to automatically configure the cat's code based on the user's personality. One group is already working on a branch of the CVS tree for a cat that has no claws or teeth and eats only an inexpensive paste made from common household ingredients. Another developer is working on a pre-emptive patch for gnuCat which allows it to be more responsive in deciding whether it wants to go outside or stay in. Project leader Felinus Hairballs says, "We're hoping to have gnuCat litter trained out-of-the-"box" by version 2.0"
I've got a digital screen.. it's a modified overhead projector using an LCD projection panel. Parts from Ebay. Good stuff. Does 1024x768 and it cost $300 total and no expensive bulbs to replace every 2000 hours. Of course it only works well in a darkened room, but hey.. that's what movie watching's all about. (..or getting sick playing Descent3) (-:
You can't say that about most Christians who make it a point to prove why that they should have input into everyones daily lives. Christians are the reason that I am not one... I have absolutely no belief structure short of the idea that probably everyone else in the world have no clue as to what is actually going on.
So I take it the part that you find frustrating is that Christians believe there is absolute truth and that truth is accessible to us as recorded in the Bible. What follows from this is that they believe that anything that varies from this absolute truth is a lie, and such lies are ultimately rooted in evil because they are a means of misleading people from absolute truth into false belief systems. Some people would call that closed-minded thinking. On the other hand, it's just as closed-minded to insist that there can't be absolute truth. If the Christians really have found ultimate truth, then they are fully justified in attacking false beliefs. Either way, to me, the stakes are too high to just blow off all 'religion' in the sense of 'guilty until proven innocent.' That and the philosophy is fascinating. (-:
In case you're interested, there's a pretty good set of articles on Christian philosophy and world view at http://www.probe.org/menus/wp-wview.html. Whether or not you want to believe it is up to you, but it's pretty informative nonetheless of what Christians really believe.
I read em because of the dialogs between Luke and Han. Oh, HP you said....
hehe.. Which is a good point of course. Although I would say that HP takes it a few steps further by essentially portraying evil forces as desirable. It also presents the subject matter in a 'real life' setting whereas SW pretty clearly sets itself as a very make-believe-world style of fantasy...not that I agree with some parts of SW either.
dotNet is not standard
on
What is .NET?
·
· Score: 2
.Net is not a standard, and it will never be a standard unless Microsoft gives up all control and turns it over to an industry consortium in which they are only one of many voices at the table. Does anybody really in their right mind see this happening?! Not a chance. So.Net will not be an industry standard. It will be a Microsoft proprietary wannabe-standard. When I say proprietary, I don't necessarily mean it will be un-documented. I mean that the only 'useful' and popular implementation will be available from M$ and it will NOT be free nor open software. All other implementations will fall short in the same way that OpenOffice is unable to emulate all the quirks in the Office file formats. That or certain features will be patented in the US or will require Microsoft's online services such as Hailstorm or.ASP or whatever to function.
So step back and ask, from a pure technical perspective, does it really accomplish anything with it's supposed CLI 'language/platform neutrality' that we can't already do today with Java--a well tested, well documented solution? Or here's another thought: do we really need platform independence in an Open Source world where software can be quickly ported and recompiled? Users are not going to pay for a.Net word processor when there's a better/faster/free one written in C/C++. No, I say we let the FUD in the popular media fly when it comes to.Net. Because when you really get down to it, it really is just another scheme to stranglehold the software industry.
You people don't actually read this crap do you? A story of a confused and rejected young boy who learns about the occult because he believes it's a source of power that will somehow fulfil him.. If that's not screwing around with the minds of children, what is? And it's disguised as a cutesy fantasy. I call it sick. I'm not one of those raving lunatic censorship people, but this is not the kind of thing impressionable kids should be filling their minds with. It disgusts me that so many people support it, let alone for the open mouth / jam down throat corporate culture aspect of the marketing involved.
And no, the occult is not the slightest bit geeky. But likely this post will get modded down because it's an unpopular opinion and, here on/., only popular opinion gets the limelight. Because uh.. that's what open media is all about right? Uhm.. No.
"the forthcoming Ogg Tarkin may be excellent codecs, but try to face the fact that the big-name content is going to be in big-name codecs"
Bullcrap. If all the media playing software supports both patented MPEG-4 codecs AND Tarkin, which one do you think content producers are going to use? The one they have to pay hourly royalties on?! And when Apple and Microsoft release media players that support this finalized MPEG-4 standard, are they going to charge people $0.25 to download them or just absorb the cost for a free download? Or would *most* people actually hastle with going through an online payment system for such a small amount just so they can see the latest gee-wiz streamed content? I highly doubt it. And you don't really have a standard unless everyone's using it.
There is a very real opportunity here to take over the codec scene. But first we need a completed Tarkin codec and enough content that people will begin clamouring for it to be supported by default in Quicktime and Windows Media Player.
So you know that our eyes are logarithmic, but you still say that linear is "superior" at "capturing what our eyes see"? I think maybe what you mean to say is that it is better at "capturing what is actually there".
Yes, you are right. "actually there" would be the correct wording.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientists at the University of the Balearic Isles have analyzed the Marvel Universe and found that it is almost like real society.
Imagine that.. humans living in real society have created fiction that is almost like... real society! Simply amazing! Good thing those research dollars are still being put to good use now that we've got the environment all figured out. So uh.. who gets the patent?
I hate to sound nihilistic, but in the end, we're just another species on this planet that will eventually go extinct.
EXCUSE ME???
I fail to understand why any sentient being would take that perspective on life.
Actually, if you do not believe that there exists a supreme being greater than our universe itself (ie. God) and do not believe that humans have God-given individual eternal souls and do not believe that there is single standard of morality, then his statement makes perfect sense. There can be no meaning in our brief lives if eternity itself lacks meaning. Eventually, even if trillions of years from now, human life will in fact end, whether from the universe re-collapsing into a singularity or expanding infinitely into a state of zero order. Most likely, some other event would destroy us before that. Point being, our physical existance individually and as a species is temporary and you cannot in any way deny this. The question then, is whether there exists a spiritual realm that transcends our physical/mental existance--some way that our choices have eternal consequence and can be judged by an absolute standard of morality. If not, then there is nothing keeping us from living as destructively as we desire--killing, raping, plundering each other and the earth. However, this is not the state of existance as we know it. We live our daily lives as if there is meaning in our existance. I believe there is.
What does this have to do with environmentalism? Because if God exists and he created us and this earth as our home, giving us a standard of moral behavior, then we should respect him, each other, and the earth for the beauty therein and with hope for an eternal meaning in our existance.
'trolling for Jesus' since 1999. (-:
OK, my turn to play pundit. (-;
.Net seems dangerous for GNOME. Imagine that Microsoft really does let other people play in the .Net game. Consider the ramifications to the Open Source movement if proprietary software like MS Office or Photoshop could be used more-or-less 'natively' in Linux using the .Net API provided by Mono. Would laziness set in, slowing projects like OpenOffice and Gimp? Would people still use the free software or would they just give in and use what is more familiar? Without .Net support, people will continue to be forced to use Free Software in many areas, thereby causing them to learn new tools and break ties with proprietary ones.
.NET is supporting the future of proprietary software simply by enabling it. Another sign of this would be GNOME/Mono moving away from GPL to a "less defensive" license. Microsoft knows that Windows could be doomed in the near future. They also know the power of the Open Source movement and that it has the power to obsolete their entire proprietary business model. IMO, they're using .NET to try to hook people into hybrid free/non-free software so that they'll still have a strong foothold no matter where the market evolves. And if the patent issues get ugly, we could end up paying Microsoft for software that *we* wrote. Sure, GNOME itself could still be free, but if half the Open Source software for it requires .NET modules from Microsoft, licensed at a cost, we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot. A similar analogy would be the DVD crypto mess. You can buy the media, you can write the free software to play it, but you can't legally use them together in the US.
It's one thing to support what could eventually be a necessary "embrace and extend" standard, but to focus everything on
So it seems to me that supporting
Let me re-emphasize: We do NOT need ANY proprietary software. We do NOT need Microsoft or ANY of their products. All we need is a stable user-developer community. In a word: consultants. That is the future of Open Source in the business world. And it is a good future both for business and free software developers.
Mind informing us what line of work you are self-employed in and how you go about your business. Frankly, it seems your example is one of what not to do. What pitfalls can us 'young'ns' avoid?
Call me apathetic, call me brilliant. ... I get paid so that I can run my own server at home and play PlayStation. I enjoy both -- but to think that my work is all that important that it won't get cast aside in a moment is folly.
There's a meaningful existance for ya. Sorry, but that life just won't cut it for many of us, even as inevitable as you try to make it seem.
"Every man dies.. Not every man really lives."
Sure, I'd love to work in some perfect Nerdvana, but it doesn't exist.
Only because you don't have the balls to make it exist. If you hate the hampster wheel, go start your own company doing consulting or something. You might make less money, but screw it. What's more important to you? Being happy or having expendable income to waste on gas-guzzling autos, bleeding-edge geek toys, and a two story suburban energy drain?
..watch out for e-mails with messages such as:
"ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!"
or
"YOU ARE ON THE WAY TO DESTRUCTION!"
These are obviously terrorists and should be reported to the feds. (-;
No matter what your take on MS, remember, they are a business, and it MAKES BUSINESS sense for them to do this.
Incorrect, my friend. Many things that make 'business sense' are unethical. It makes good 'business sense' to exploit overseas sweatshop labor to lower manufacturing costs. But that's certainly not ethical.
Hey, if we can get an announcement every time a new point rev of a development kernel hits the FTP sites, can't we hear about Mac OS X?
/. is supposed to be news for nerds. And no self-respecting nerd uses Apple's bloated, highly-inferior hack of BSD.
No, because
Hmm.. Blu Ray.. how can we change this into an acronym that rolls off the tongue easily?
How about.. BVD's: BluRay Versatile Discs (-: Will that be boxers or briefs?
Amazing. Two morons modded the parent down because they didn't like my (valid) opinion that Nautilus sucks. Lamers. Well, here you go, you idiots: a real troll. Go ahead and waste your mod points on this one too! ahhahaa.. that's one less point you'll get to hurt another thoughtful post because you don't agree with it! ahhahaha.. Mod this down!!! GNOME sucks!!! KDE RULEZ!!! Do you like this approach better?
I rate all negative moderations as unfair.
Right now, KDE has an enormous lead over GNOME with ordinary users. The reason for this is pretty simple: KDE has a unified web/file/desktop browser that is fast, clean, intuitive, and full-featured. Non-technical users, especially prior Windows users, have come to expect this in an interface. They are used to a high degree of object oriented design and a consistent 'look' to the interface. Nautilus is highly lacking in this regard. It is very slow, has clunky web browsing support, is very lacking in basic features / configurability, and does not have a clean unified feel. Because of this, users must switch back and forth between Nautilus and Mozilla/galeon. And Nautilus downright sucks for any sort of GUI file management, thus requiring yet another utility if one desires such functionality. So now you have Nautilus for your desktop icons, Mozilla for web browsing, and something else for file-management. And none of them talk to each other.
In my opinion, if GNOME and KDE want to cooperate in the future, they need to decide on a single object model, a single RPC/IPC mechanism, and a single clipboard system. Judging by KDE's proven success in this area, it only makes sense to use it as the standard rather than break both and start from scratch. Unfortunately, it seems the GNOME people are extremely stubborn about switching to C++. The reason of course, is historical: the old rule of thumb that C is more efficient than C++.. or more accurately, that C++ compilers are slow. This is beginning to change, and no doubt, g++ would be improving much faster if more people were using it.
Or we can just keep going about re-inventing each others' wheels. Pretty silly if you ask me. One other note, the human aspect, is another advantage KDE has. GNOME needs some better unified leadership and goals. Compare, for instance, kdelibs to the dozens of library packages needed to compile GNOME. Having unified releases is a good thing for everyone.
Corel has helped the community on a huge scale, providing the Linux world with versions of Corel Draw and Corel WordPerfect.
Really? Where can I go download them? Where's the source code?
I'm sick of these stupid comments. Proprietary software is NEVER 'helping the community.' It is purely seeking one's own self-interest. I'm not trying to make a moral case here. Just call things as they are, people.
Why would I want to run a hacked up proprietary OS derived from an older version of BSD when I can run the real thing? Or Linux. What's the point? What would you gain? The interface is nothing to raise an eyebrow at in terms of real functionality. It's bloated and cheezy. Yes, those stupid minimize/restore warp animations get old after about.. the 5th time you've seen them. What's the point? Proprietary is dead. Get over it Apple.
Or it could be the disaster that kills Wine / Linux. IFF the WinSource is handed over for technical examination, it will certainly be in a VERY controlled environment and, most likely, subject to non-disclosure agreements or court orders. If copyrighted code from Windows wound up in any part of Linux, then Microsoft would have legal justification to sue distributors everywhere to block all distribution. Followed by suits against every name in the contributors list for the infected projects.
Who says the original code would be used? It's more a matter of 'dirty-room' reverse-engineering of data structures, API 'features', etc. Frankly, the best solution to this whole anti-trust deal would be to force Microsoft to publically disclose all documentation of binary file formats, hidden API features, and anything other proprietary nonsense they've created. That way, Open Source software like Wine and OpenOffice could quickly become 100% compatible with MS products.
Doesn't the FCC have some sort of thing where if a standard is used by x% of the market then it must be publically documented and opened for competition? Couldn't this apply to Windows and Office?
If Amazon had countersued InTouch for the waste of their time and litigation costs, would they have gotten anywhere? Is this a threat they could have waved at InTouch to get them to drop the suit?
don't we already have enough Katz?
In other related news..
The Free Software Foundation announced Thursday the beginning of a new 'software' project known as "gnuCat' and a related project 'CatGNiP'. From RMS's announcement, "Building the perfect feline companion through a collaborative community effort will ensure that the species' genetic code remains free of restrictive licensing and that users will be able to modify and extend their cats to suit their needs.' For example, users of gnuCat will be able to configure the cat's color, size, obesity, and proclivity to scratch furniture, using a simple ncurses menu system. gnuCat developers are already discussing a new way to automatically configure the cat's code based on the user's personality. One group is already working on a branch of the CVS tree for a cat that has no claws or teeth and eats only an inexpensive paste made from common household ingredients. Another developer is working on a pre-emptive patch for gnuCat which allows it to be more responsive in deciding whether it wants to go outside or stay in. Project leader Felinus Hairballs says, "We're hoping to have gnuCat litter trained out-of-the-"box" by version 2.0"
I've got a digital screen.. it's a modified overhead projector using an LCD projection panel. Parts from Ebay. Good stuff. Does 1024x768 and it cost $300 total and no expensive bulbs to replace every 2000 hours. Of course it only works well in a darkened room, but hey.. that's what movie watching's all about. (..or getting sick playing Descent3) (-:
You can't say that about most Christians who make it a point to prove why that they should have input into everyones daily lives. Christians are the reason that I am not one. .. I have absolutely no belief structure short of the idea that probably everyone else in the world have no clue as to what is actually going on.
So I take it the part that you find frustrating is that Christians believe there is absolute truth and that truth is accessible to us as recorded in the Bible. What follows from this is that they believe that anything that varies from this absolute truth is a lie, and such lies are ultimately rooted in evil because they are a means of misleading people from absolute truth into false belief systems. Some people would call that closed-minded thinking. On the other hand, it's just as closed-minded to insist that there can't be absolute truth. If the Christians really have found ultimate truth, then they are fully justified in attacking false beliefs. Either way, to me, the stakes are too high to just blow off all 'religion' in the sense of 'guilty until proven innocent.' That and the philosophy is fascinating. (-:
In case you're interested, there's a pretty good set of articles on Christian philosophy and world view at http://www.probe.org/menus/wp-wview.html. Whether or not you want to believe it is up to you, but it's pretty informative nonetheless of what Christians really believe.
I read em because of the dialogs between Luke and Han. Oh, HP you said....
..not that I agree with some parts of SW either.
hehe.. Which is a good point of course. Although I would say that HP takes it a few steps further by essentially portraying evil forces as desirable. It also presents the subject matter in a 'real life' setting whereas SW pretty clearly sets itself as a very make-believe-world style of fantasy.
.Net is not a standard, and it will never be a standard unless Microsoft gives up all control and turns it over to an industry consortium in which they are only one of many voices at the table. Does anybody really in their right mind see this happening?! Not a chance. So .Net will not be an industry standard. It will be a Microsoft proprietary wannabe-standard. When I say proprietary, I don't necessarily mean it will be un-documented. I mean that the only 'useful' and popular implementation will be available from M$ and it will NOT be free nor open software. All other implementations will fall short in the same way that OpenOffice is unable to emulate all the quirks in the Office file formats. That or certain features will be patented in the US or will require Microsoft's online services such as Hailstorm or .ASP or whatever to function.
.Net word processor when there's a better/faster/free one written in C/C++. No, I say we let the FUD in the popular media fly when it comes to .Net. Because when you really get down to it, it really is just another scheme to stranglehold the software industry.
So step back and ask, from a pure technical perspective, does it really accomplish anything with it's supposed CLI 'language/platform neutrality' that we can't already do today with Java--a well tested, well documented solution? Or here's another thought: do we really need platform independence in an Open Source world where software can be quickly ported and recompiled? Users are not going to pay for a
So there you have my opinion. Mod away! (-;
You people don't actually read this crap do you? A story of a confused and rejected young boy who learns about the occult because he believes it's a source of power that will somehow fulfil him.. If that's not screwing around with the minds of children, what is? And it's disguised as a cutesy fantasy. I call it sick. I'm not one of those raving lunatic censorship people, but this is not the kind of thing impressionable kids should be filling their minds with. It disgusts me that so many people support it, let alone for the open mouth / jam down throat corporate culture aspect of the marketing involved.
/., only popular opinion gets the limelight. Because uh.. that's what open media is all about right? Uhm.. No.
And no, the occult is not the slightest bit geeky. But likely this post will get modded down because it's an unpopular opinion and, here on
"the forthcoming Ogg Tarkin may be excellent codecs, but try to face the fact that the big-name content is going to be in big-name codecs"
Bullcrap. If all the media playing software supports both patented MPEG-4 codecs AND Tarkin, which one do you think content producers are going to use? The one they have to pay hourly royalties on?! And when Apple and Microsoft release media players that support this finalized MPEG-4 standard, are they going to charge people $0.25 to download them or just absorb the cost for a free download? Or would *most* people actually hastle with going through an online payment system for such a small amount just so they can see the latest gee-wiz streamed content? I highly doubt it. And you don't really have a standard unless everyone's using it.
There is a very real opportunity here to take over the codec scene. But first we need a completed Tarkin codec and enough content that people will begin clamouring for it to be supported by default in Quicktime and Windows Media Player.
So you know that our eyes are logarithmic, but you still say that linear is "superior" at "capturing what our eyes see"? I think maybe what you mean to say is that it is better at "capturing what is actually there".
Yes, you are right. "actually there" would be the correct wording.