I use Ubuntu on a Macbook. The power management (battery life, suspend, hibernate) is much better on Mac OS, and there are a few drivers that need to be installed, but otherwise it works just fine.
Wait, so you're saying that freedom is useless unless I have full freedom? I disagree, every small bit of freedom is a good thing. I don't think my software principles apply to proprietary AVs, I think an AV that respects them even slightly more is better than an equivalent one that doesn't.
It is pretty well established that a good government represents the people it governs, ergo a good government is a representative government. It is certainly possible for, say, a monarch to choose to represent the will of the people, but it is uncommon. When it does happen the kings and queens are held in very high regard for centuries.
My point isn't one against democracy. My point is that a good government (ie. one which represents the wishes and needs of the people) is the ultimate objective. The fact that I can throw a ballot into a box to influence who the leader is is not in itself useful, it's the fact that the system tends to put good, representative governments into place that makes it a good system.
The excuse was something like "the wipers would take the place of another instrument, and since there's a diminishing return on benefit per time from each instrument (the soil has 0.035% water. Cool! The soil still has 0.035% water. Yawn), 90 days with more instruments beats a year with fewer instruments"
It was, according to the summary, the article and the rest of this thread, a check he was not supposed to make without authorization. He made it because he was pissed off at his wife leaving him. Seems sudden and emotion-driven to me.
We want people in the TSA who don't make sudden emotion-driven decisions but instead can think rationally, even if a terrorist flies a plane into a building again.
Was it really designed for 90 days? It could be that the only way they could sell it to Congress was if they told them that they only had to pay for technicians for 3 months.
I think it is moral. Provided that your game is about the same quality as the commercial ones, the results look something like this:
-Every person who would have bought the commercial game saves X dollars. -The developers of the commercial game lose X dollars per person due to the lost sale
It's neutral so far, but some of the developers of the commercial games are going to stop developing and start developing some other game or software, which will benefit others. Because of this, the net effect is positive.
For paintings you don't really need copyright - the originals are what matter, and they can sell for millions of dollars despite camera shots being publicly available. Copyright is intellectual (or imaginary) property, paintings are physical property so of course you can't hammer one into a hole shaped for the other.
Why does it have to be an iPhone game? Lots of people make open source games and release them for free to the world, some even under the no-strings-attached BSD license. And yes, these games do create an expectation that games that aren't of a high commercial quality must be free and thus destroy the market for many independent developers.
1) Sony, Barnes and Noble and Walmart sell Gone With The Wind for $10 per copy 2) People download it from the net but the people without internet can't 3) Random Publisher A releases their version to this market for $9 a copy, Sony, B&N and WM lose their business, until... 4) Sony starts selling for $8 a copy And so on, until the book is sold to everyone for 10 cents above what the paper, binding and printing costs.
Nah, the internet is still routing around stuff. What you're seeing are the politicians continuing to play whack-a-mole but causing massive collateral damage.
Make copyright require registration again. It could be painless and free, as in "send a copy of your work, including source code (the whole point of copyright is building on others, and you can't build upon a closed binary) to the copyright office online and you're done in 2 minutes". Copyright by default has the huge problem that orphan works are unusable.
It's not just about downloading, it's about building on the works of others. Unfortunately, large corporations can't ignore the law as easily as we can and progress that could have been done by them is lost.
This is probably old news, but websites and organizations change. In 2000, this was a news site. Now, it's a discussion site. Slogans don't always reflect reality.
Knock over a few? It's more centralized then I would like but it's not that centralized. And even then we have satellite, we could set up ad hoc wireless networks, use IP over avian carriers, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
No I don't. I don't have any relationship whatsoever with LexisNexis.
I use Ubuntu on a Macbook. The power management (battery life, suspend, hibernate) is much better on Mac OS, and there are a few drivers that need to be installed, but otherwise it works just fine.
Wait, so you're saying that freedom is useless unless I have full freedom? I disagree, every small bit of freedom is a good thing. I don't think my software principles apply to proprietary AVs, I think an AV that respects them even slightly more is better than an equivalent one that doesn't.
It is pretty well established that a good government represents the people it governs, ergo a good government is a representative government. It is certainly possible for, say, a monarch to choose to represent the will of the people, but it is uncommon. When it does happen the kings and queens are held in very high regard for centuries.
My point isn't one against democracy. My point is that a good government (ie. one which represents the wishes and needs of the people) is the ultimate objective. The fact that I can throw a ballot into a box to influence who the leader is is not in itself useful, it's the fact that the system tends to put good, representative governments into place that makes it a good system.
The excuse was something like "the wipers would take the place of another instrument, and since there's a diminishing return on benefit per time from each instrument (the soil has 0.035% water. Cool! The soil still has 0.035% water. Yawn), 90 days with more instruments beats a year with fewer instruments"
It was, according to the summary, the article and the rest of this thread, a check he was not supposed to make without authorization. He made it because he was pissed off at his wife leaving him. Seems sudden and emotion-driven to me.
Software freedom is more important than software safety, just like everywhere else.
We want people in the TSA who don't make sudden emotion-driven decisions but instead can think rationally, even if a terrorist flies a plane into a building again.
The goal is good government. Democracy and representation are just means to that end.
Was it really designed for 90 days? It could be that the only way they could sell it to Congress was if they told them that they only had to pay for technicians for 3 months.
Ok, here's the evil one liner in python.
import time
for i in range(0,61): print str((i>30)*1) * abs(i-30) + "1" + "0" * (30 - abs(i-30)) + " " + time.strftime("%a %b %d %H:%M:%S +0000 %Y",time.gmtime((2**(30 - abs(i-30))) * ((i <= 30) * 2 - 1) + 2 ** 31 * (i > 30)))
I think it is moral. Provided that your game is about the same quality as the commercial ones, the results look something like this:
-Every person who would have bought the commercial game saves X dollars.
-The developers of the commercial game lose X dollars per person due to the lost sale
It's neutral so far, but some of the developers of the commercial games are going to stop developing and start developing some other game or software, which will benefit others. Because of this, the net effect is positive.
Here's some readable python:
import time
for i in range(0,31):
print "0"*(30-i) + "1" + "0"*i + " " + time.strftime("%a %b %d %H:%M:%S +0000 %Y",time.gmtime(2**i))
for i in reversed(range(0,31)):
print "1"*(31-i) + "0"*i + " " + time.strftime("%a %b %d %H:%M:%S +0000 %Y",time.gmtime(2**31 - 2**i))
print "$"
Just because the fan could have handled this better doesn't make this takedown any less an evil act.
Arguing what the law is is boring - the first one to Wikipedia wins. Slashdot arguments are about what the law should be.
For paintings you don't really need copyright - the originals are what matter, and they can sell for millions of dollars despite camera shots being publicly available. Copyright is intellectual (or imaginary) property, paintings are physical property so of course you can't hammer one into a hole shaped for the other.
Why does it have to be an iPhone game? Lots of people make open source games and release them for free to the world, some even under the no-strings-attached BSD license. And yes, these games do create an expectation that games that aren't of a high commercial quality must be free and thus destroy the market for many independent developers.
1) Sony, Barnes and Noble and Walmart sell Gone With The Wind for $10 per copy
2) People download it from the net but the people without internet can't
3) Random Publisher A releases their version to this market for $9 a copy, Sony, B&N and WM lose their business, until...
4) Sony starts selling for $8 a copy
And so on, until the book is sold to everyone for 10 cents above what the paper, binding and printing costs.
Nah, the internet is still routing around stuff. What you're seeing are the politicians continuing to play whack-a-mole but causing massive collateral damage.
Make copyright require registration again. It could be painless and free, as in "send a copy of your work, including source code (the whole point of copyright is building on others, and you can't build upon a closed binary) to the copyright office online and you're done in 2 minutes". Copyright by default has the huge problem that orphan works are unusable.
It's not just about downloading, it's about building on the works of others. Unfortunately, large corporations can't ignore the law as easily as we can and progress that could have been done by them is lost.
This is probably old news, but websites and organizations change. In 2000, this was a news site. Now, it's a discussion site. Slogans don't always reflect reality.
I think he meant "inevitably".
This is not a news site. This is a discussion site. And that's the way I like it.
Knock over a few? It's more centralized then I would like but it's not that centralized. And even then we have satellite, we could set up ad hoc wireless networks, use IP over avian carriers, etc.