I had not, thank you:) While not in hurry to get myself a smart phone (I still use an old Nokia with J2ME app support & GPRS for online usage), one day I'd like to buy an Android phone (unless something better comes up before - not from MS or Apple, I don't trust them) and this adds to make it even more attractive for me:)
What is there to "get" about some people enjoying the possibility to choose where scripts are used when some pages just work better with javascript partially or totally blocked? I have experienced huge sluggishness with some pages when scripts are all allowed while working same or better when some/all of it is blocked - hard to get? Not unless you are mentally challenged.
But seriously, expecting to browse the modern web with noscript enabled just isn't sane.
Perfectly sane - it may not be realistic, but just like expecting people to not act like dickwads it's still sane. And most of the time not being able to use a page without enabling all or some sources of javascript is because of nothing but crappy lazy planning and programming - most functionality should & could be made to degrade gracefully when client lacks functionality.
Logged in gmail with Opera Mini on my old cell phone last week - yes, it has very limited javascript support, but basically not - and received a very nice mobile optimized interface, so exceptionally well working compared to many pages today that should not even need any "ajaxy" stuff yet still utilize it without noscript fallback sometimes even to show static content (ie. article main text), which is too common and really awful work I wouldn't want to use in my resume.
Most content would work perfectly fine without client side scripting and should be written that way - and any javascript, especially AJAX stuff should then be added to complement how the page works and only features not possible otherwise should be written as only way to do or see something being with client side scripting.
Now Lincoln on the other hand was a racist atheist prick
Maybe he was that, I don't know - not from USA, so I would not be expected to necessarily have knowledge of Lincoln any more than you would be expected to know of Urho Kekkonen (or even that, Kekkonen was president between 1956–1982) - but what I'd like to know is why did you include being "atheist" in what clearly was meant to be a set of negative qualities? What do you have against being an atheist?
ABS (anti lock brakes) are also mandatory in cars here, and seatbelts. They usually work, because they are nod designed by the government. Why would the goventment design them? They just mandate some technology that does something, and let the manufacturers figure out how to make that.
Well, the person clearly is a US citizen with little clue of how EU's or any of it's countries politics work.
Excellent reply, even though most likely wasted on the person you are replying for, but it's nice to see someone who clearly "thinks like American" (usually this type of replies are still hugely different from yours because written by people "thinking like European/Canadian/etc." - not sure if you know what I mean, that was a stupid way to put it) but is not one of these extremist lunatics. Also for other readers your post is probably insightful - I would mod up if I had points.
Many children would disagree with much of what adults believe.
And in many of those disagreements children are right too - and I didn't say "most", mind you, but your post nor my reply here has nothing to do with previous posts.
Now, you are obviously creating a straw argument, not something that was under discussion, from the elderly and the disabled, probably to children.
Obviously the response is clear (not to you, but to me it is). The elderly people have produced over their lives, they have savings (or they should have savings), savings is what they produced and saved in order to retire at some point.
As to the disabled... the truly disabled, those who cannot work at all, they should be taken care of by charity of-course, not by any government, not by force and threat of violence.
The children are responsibility of their parents, and parents should have insurance for cases where they cannot take care of their children, this is just a prudent thing to do. If parents don't care about their children enough to ensure the well being of their own children, why should anybody else? Of-course again, there are charities for children, no question about it. Plenty of people donate plenty of money for such causes.
All of your examples have nothing to do at all with what is discussed, so your straw argument is burning.
The piece I made bold is, as far as my opinion goes, a lie hidden in factual statement. We have experience of how this works with charity only and can still see it around the world, including USA (your welfare system is lousy), and that's why majority agrees that to do otherwise is barbaric and that the comparison to genocide has it's points. Yes, by force and threat of violence, and by the government, is indeed the right way to go - and not the least because of people who think like you (and them becoming the minority in control is what happens when societies reach certain point of development) - but it's a nasty way to put it though doesn't surprise me.
I am against gov't spending, including military. Defence is one thing, having a standing army to attack everybody is something else.
By the way, SS spending makes your economy go kaboom eventually, pretty far away from being 'ok'.
Other countries with long experience with much better SS than USA disagree - of course you can just ignore that with "just wait, it will go kaboom eventually", but even though hard to argue that proves nothing.
Your economy is collapsing despite SS, not because of it.
Also, these anti-welfare people are not opposing just paying for other peoples welfare but, as can be seen in this thread too, they often seem to oppose society providing anything for anyone for free - even if it would cost them nothing. This must be a result of some cultural moral fallacy and I can't fathom how anyone with half brain can think that way.
Pretty much any on-screen display of an interface meant to mimic a physical device should go straight into the "not patentable, prior art" pile at every patent office. There is nothing original, novel, or non-obvious regarding user interfaces which are similar in operation to physical devices.
Agreed, though I'd allow such patents if they pass some extra scrutiny in case it would actually need special innovation to implement "virtual emulation" of physical device in question - but even then I only accept this as long as software patents, which I don't accept, are still allowed in patent law.
Patent offices are funded by the application fees and tax moneys in most jurisdictions. I suggest they add an additional revenue stream for patent spamming. Start really examining the patent applications and if a company makes over X number of applications per year with more than some threshold percentage denied for prior art or otherwise not meeting a high standard of patentability, begin charging a punitive fee for the additional scrutiny their patents will need due to patent spamming.
Agreed mostly, but I would allow patent as long as it's owner has even at least one application for it, even if still under work - but if someone came up with application for it after patent was given but no work on application for it had begin yet the patent should be denied. Also if the patent owner did have application for it but they are not selling it or making money with it anymore then the patent should be denied too.
I would ban any business models that use patents themselves, not applications of them, to make money.
Oh really? And cordoning off the "historic park" with barriers and shrink wrap with big "do not touch" signs isn't "narcissistic and selfish behavior"?
How would it be?
Free clue: These "historical places" aren't going to last forever, regardless. The world was put here for us to use and enjoy.
That would actually be really good idea - it could also be used by UPS to provide electricity from pedaling when possible and to charge it when the power is out.
Indeed, but Osgeld writes like FSF had done something really nasty that forces others to use something they would not want to, or forced their rules for others to follow. I don't get it either.
My mothers laptop (couple years old) also had USB boot on - I noticed it when I had my USB memstick connected and when booting I saw not the horrible Vista but Ubuntu loading up (I use the stick mostly for files/apps I need on unfamiliar systems, but also made it have Ubuntu Live/Install to boot:) ).
How come not? I put the blame on all the others locking their systems (though I understand that android systems generally are easy to root with no HW mods needed, thus I don't blame manufacturers of them that badly), why not M$?
And as far as the severity of it goes, M$ is closer to Apple than Android manufacturers on the W8-on-ARM hardware locking - it's at least as bad as Apple, if not worse (not sure how severe the locking issue on different Apple hardware is or how big the risk of bricking your device).
And with ARM systems certified for Win8 you don't have to even think about this, as disabling or loading your own or 3rd party keys won't be allowed - less confusion, just throw it away =)
The classic case of "doom scenarios" pushed to the extreme.
Yes, it's obviously just that - and on purpose too. But is it unrealistic? Fearmongering?
Many of the issues in that piece of fiction are or have once been real issues in modern world - even in 1st world countries - and you can find some politicians around the world that have suggested such things, probably in several different countries and currently in power too...
"Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that." - well, that would be basically a Microsoft dream come true, but on a smaller scale, isn't this basically what's happening with W8 on ARM?
Libraries? Our current president actually once (not more than year ago) suggested that public libraries were to be made pay-to-access. I have heard this kind of stuff - even shutting down public libraries for good - now and then around the world, but was shocked to hear it even considered a possibility here in Finland, where education is free.
Producers of school books have always tried to lobby for more restrictions for using, re-selling, copying, etc. of the books - with eBooks and DRM this could become much worse.
That fictional writing, followed by commentary with facts of the actual world today, is not that far fetched - for a sci-fi dystopian world it's way more realistic than either, 1984 or Brave New World, both which are considered widely to be insightful cautionary stories. I don't see anything to criticize in that story, nor the commentary below.
Anyone who feels that not having the source is unacceptable should either cough up and pay for the work involved or get his hands dirty and scratch his own itch. The same applies to hardware and documentation (and cars, ketchup, governments and most other things).
FSF and their GPL license fully supports asking money for the software and providing the application and source code only to paying end users - GPL does not allow for asking extra for the source code though (except reasonable costs to cover shipping, etc. if relevant) but it doesn't force you to give the source for anyone but those who have legally obtained copy of your compiled product.
I'm not personally 100% against closed proprietary software, just stating the FSF view on the subject (as FSF is more relevant to article than F/OSS in general).
Slashdot Mirror
Have you seen this?
http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/android
I had not, thank you :) While not in hurry to get myself a smart phone (I still use an old Nokia with J2ME app support & GPRS for online usage), one day I'd like to buy an Android phone (unless something better comes up before - not from MS or Apple, I don't trust them) and this adds to make it even more attractive for me :)
What is there to "get" about some people enjoying the possibility to choose where scripts are used when some pages just work better with javascript partially or totally blocked? I have experienced huge sluggishness with some pages when scripts are all allowed while working same or better when some/all of it is blocked - hard to get? Not unless you are mentally challenged.
But seriously, expecting to browse the modern web with noscript enabled just isn't sane.
Perfectly sane - it may not be realistic, but just like expecting people to not act like dickwads it's still sane. And most of the time not being able to use a page without enabling all or some sources of javascript is because of nothing but crappy lazy planning and programming - most functionality should & could be made to degrade gracefully when client lacks functionality.
Logged in gmail with Opera Mini on my old cell phone last week - yes, it has very limited javascript support, but basically not - and received a very nice mobile optimized interface, so exceptionally well working compared to many pages today that should not even need any "ajaxy" stuff yet still utilize it without noscript fallback sometimes even to show static content (ie. article main text), which is too common and really awful work I wouldn't want to use in my resume.
Most content would work perfectly fine without client side scripting and should be written that way - and any javascript, especially AJAX stuff should then be added to complement how the page works and only features not possible otherwise should be written as only way to do or see something being with client side scripting.
I agree, but I'm from Finland where this already works quite well.
Now Lincoln on the other hand was a racist atheist prick
Maybe he was that, I don't know - not from USA, so I would not be expected to necessarily have knowledge of Lincoln any more than you would be expected to know of Urho Kekkonen (or even that, Kekkonen was president between 1956–1982) - but what I'd like to know is why did you include being "atheist" in what clearly was meant to be a set of negative qualities? What do you have against being an atheist?
ABS (anti lock brakes) are also mandatory in cars here, and seatbelts. They usually work, because they are nod designed by the government. Why would the goventment design them? They just mandate some technology that does something, and let the manufacturers figure out how to make that.
Well, the person clearly is a US citizen with little clue of how EU's or any of it's countries politics work.
what about service? radio aint free anymore
This is not USA, remember? Emergency calls are always free, you just need a connection with any cell tower.
My thoughts exactly.
Excellent reply, even though most likely wasted on the person you are replying for, but it's nice to see someone who clearly "thinks like American" (usually this type of replies are still hugely different from yours because written by people "thinking like European/Canadian/etc." - not sure if you know what I mean, that was a stupid way to put it) but is not one of these extremist lunatics. Also for other readers your post is probably insightful - I would mod up if I had points.
Many children would disagree with much of what adults believe.
And in many of those disagreements children are right too - and I didn't say "most", mind you, but your post nor my reply here has nothing to do with previous posts.
Now, you are obviously creating a straw argument, not something that was under discussion, from the elderly and the disabled, probably to children.
Obviously the response is clear (not to you, but to me it is). The elderly people have produced over their lives, they have savings (or they should have savings), savings is what they produced and saved in order to retire at some point.
As to the disabled... the truly disabled, those who cannot work at all, they should be taken care of by charity of-course, not by any government, not by force and threat of violence.
The children are responsibility of their parents, and parents should have insurance for cases where they cannot take care of their children, this is just a prudent thing to do. If parents don't care about their children enough to ensure the well being of their own children, why should anybody else? Of-course again, there are charities for children, no question about it. Plenty of people donate plenty of money for such causes.
All of your examples have nothing to do at all with what is discussed, so your straw argument is burning.
The piece I made bold is, as far as my opinion goes, a lie hidden in factual statement. We have experience of how this works with charity only and can still see it around the world, including USA (your welfare system is lousy), and that's why majority agrees that to do otherwise is barbaric and that the comparison to genocide has it's points. Yes, by force and threat of violence, and by the government, is indeed the right way to go - and not the least because of people who think like you (and them becoming the minority in control is what happens when societies reach certain point of development) - but it's a nasty way to put it though doesn't surprise me.
Is your belief that majority of people are worthless and want to live on welfare?
I'd like to ask you this question...
I am against gov't spending, including military. Defence is one thing, having a standing army to attack everybody is something else.
By the way, SS spending makes your economy go kaboom eventually, pretty far away from being 'ok'.
Other countries with long experience with much better SS than USA disagree - of course you can just ignore that with "just wait, it will go kaboom eventually", but even though hard to argue that proves nothing.
Your economy is collapsing despite SS, not because of it.
You want to provide charity? Reach for your own wallet, not for other people's purses.
I do that sometimes, yes - but for the purpose of this conversation, I don't have to: see, I live in Finland, which is a 1st world country.
I would mod you up if I had points...
Also, these anti-welfare people are not opposing just paying for other peoples welfare but, as can be seen in this thread too, they often seem to oppose society providing anything for anyone for free - even if it would cost them nothing. This must be a result of some cultural moral fallacy and I can't fathom how anyone with half brain can think that way.
Pretty much any on-screen display of an interface meant to mimic a physical device should go straight into the "not patentable, prior art" pile at every patent office. There is nothing original, novel, or non-obvious regarding user interfaces which are similar in operation to physical devices.
Agreed, though I'd allow such patents if they pass some extra scrutiny in case it would actually need special innovation to implement "virtual emulation" of physical device in question - but even then I only accept this as long as software patents, which I don't accept, are still allowed in patent law.
Patent offices are funded by the application fees and tax moneys in most jurisdictions. I suggest they add an additional revenue stream for patent spamming. Start really examining the patent applications and if a company makes over X number of applications per year with more than some threshold percentage denied for prior art or otherwise not meeting a high standard of patentability, begin charging a punitive fee for the additional scrutiny their patents will need due to patent spamming.
Agreed mostly, but I would allow patent as long as it's owner has even at least one application for it, even if still under work - but if someone came up with application for it after patent was given but no work on application for it had begin yet the patent should be denied. Also if the patent owner did have application for it but they are not selling it or making money with it anymore then the patent should be denied too.
I would ban any business models that use patents themselves, not applications of them, to make money.
I'd vote your post Insightful if I had mod points :)
It's a narcissistic and selfish behavior.
Oh really? And cordoning off the "historic park" with barriers and shrink wrap with big "do not touch" signs isn't "narcissistic and selfish behavior"?
How would it be?
Free clue: These "historical places" aren't going to last forever, regardless. The world was put here for us to use and enjoy.
It was put here by whom?
That would actually be really good idea - it could also be used by UPS to provide electricity from pedaling when possible and to charge it when the power is out.
Indeed, but Osgeld writes like FSF had done something really nasty that forces others to use something they would not want to, or forced their rules for others to follow. I don't get it either.
My mothers laptop (couple years old) also had USB boot on - I noticed it when I had my USB memstick connected and when booting I saw not the horrible Vista but Ubuntu loading up (I use the stick mostly for files/apps I need on unfamiliar systems, but also made it have Ubuntu Live/Install to boot :) ).
How come not? I put the blame on all the others locking their systems (though I understand that android systems generally are easy to root with no HW mods needed, thus I don't blame manufacturers of them that badly), why not M$?
And as far as the severity of it goes, M$ is closer to Apple than Android manufacturers on the W8-on-ARM hardware locking - it's at least as bad as Apple, if not worse (not sure how severe the locking issue on different Apple hardware is or how big the risk of bricking your device).
And with ARM systems certified for Win8 you don't have to even think about this, as disabling or loading your own or 3rd party keys won't be allowed - less confusion, just throw it away =)
The classic case of "doom scenarios" pushed to the extreme.
Yes, it's obviously just that - and on purpose too. But is it unrealistic? Fearmongering?
Many of the issues in that piece of fiction are or have once been real issues in modern world - even in 1st world countries - and you can find some politicians around the world that have suggested such things, probably in several different countries and currently in power too...
"Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that." - well, that would be basically a Microsoft dream come true, but on a smaller scale, isn't this basically what's happening with W8 on ARM?
Libraries? Our current president actually once (not more than year ago) suggested that public libraries were to be made pay-to-access. I have heard this kind of stuff - even shutting down public libraries for good - now and then around the world, but was shocked to hear it even considered a possibility here in Finland, where education is free.
Producers of school books have always tried to lobby for more restrictions for using, re-selling, copying, etc. of the books - with eBooks and DRM this could become much worse.
That fictional writing, followed by commentary with facts of the actual world today, is not that far fetched - for a sci-fi dystopian world it's way more realistic than either, 1984 or Brave New World, both which are considered widely to be insightful cautionary stories. I don't see anything to criticize in that story, nor the commentary below.
Anyone who feels that not having the source is unacceptable should either cough up and pay for the work involved or get his hands dirty and scratch his own itch. The same applies to hardware and documentation (and cars, ketchup, governments and most other things).
FSF and their GPL license fully supports asking money for the software and providing the application and source code only to paying end users - GPL does not allow for asking extra for the source code though (except reasonable costs to cover shipping, etc. if relevant) but it doesn't force you to give the source for anyone but those who have legally obtained copy of your compiled product.
I'm not personally 100% against closed proprietary software, just stating the FSF view on the subject (as FSF is more relevant to article than F/OSS in general).