What the hell is the problem here? Just start up their own root servers for their own roots. Just leave the existing ones as are. You know how bad that would piss off businesses in their countries if they tried to break off? They have no real option as far as obtaining control of US run root servers. Give it up..com.net.gov = USA. Sorry.
Wow completely and totally tested. What have you traced the code running through each possible branch of instructions in their program. Aren't you reverse engineering then? You know thats illegal in the US... But seriously though, a testing lab only PROVES the observed output will occur only when the exact scenario down to the supplied data, the time of day, or whatever source of data the program mysteriously pulls from occurs. Without the source, a user can not certify jack, and actually know what he/her is talking about. The rest is purely good faith. This is not true for open source where computer scientists are fairly widely available if you need help. Heck, the kid down the street who can program can probably help you. This availability is in stark contrast to your car engineering liability, which despite differing greatly in severity of outcomes (usually), also differs greatly in the number of people who can actually assist in discovery, diagnosis, and fixing the problem. Assuming its really something that they would initiate a recall for. Also, I think liability should only be an issue where there was some kind of exchange, not just a gift.
All I'm saying is that open source devs should always have the RIGHT to disclaim any express or implied warranty of correctness. I'm not saying they can't pick up that liability if they want. That would be fine. Good luck with it, if you have no other form of income. I'm not saying they can't certify their own code. But there is a very large difference between freely offering for public consumption and certifying of correctness. Give one, charge for the other if you want them to do it. Of course with the proprietary applications (the ones purchased at least, which is all I intend to refer to) the liability should be limited explicitly to the claims set forth by the company in packaging or otherwise. And a license agreement, if applicable, should be obviously placed and freely accessible, if they wish to also disclaim such things.
Exactly, my point. If you want liability for open source software, do exactly as you say. Pay somebody to certify the reliability of a release of software, and as such you can sue if they are wrong.
Isn't it weird how several people, in almost unison, just suddenly decided: "Hey software developers need to be held liable for bugs in their code." It makes you wonder about their backgrounds (read second paragraph). I'm sure this has nothing to do with open source software developers being financially incapable of being held liable for flaws in software they donated. On the other side, I do agree that closed source (AND ONLY CLOSED SOURCE) software makers should definetely be held liable, as there is no other means of recourse in the event of software failure. Whereas, open source license or not, spells out exactly what it will do, line-for-line, and you can either take it or leave it.
You're right, people in the United States are stupid. Just look at our president. Standard citizen. But while I do agree that it shouldn't just be flat majority rule, it most definetely shouldn't be corporate rule. Corporate entities should have no control whatsoever over PERSONAL freedoms. Keep them in their own domain.
Whats stopping you from just having two digital cameras? What you just like to pay for film and processing? Digital cameras really are to the point that you don't need film anymore.
Yeah, also doesn't it seem like something so unsustainable sure has sustained, with much success, for quite a while now. This guy must be my old discrete math teacher.
Or to put it in another way. PNG/Jpeg/BMP/TIFF/GIF are raster formats, which means the image is saved as a grid of pixel colors, one color per grid space. SVG/Flash/CDR are vector graphics formats meaning that the image is saved as a set of instruction to draw the image. The instructions are usually something along the lines of draw line, arc, ellipse, curve, fill, gradient, filter. All of these can be scaled up to achieve as high a resolution version of these as you want. But in reality you are only going to see more well defined curves, not necessarily more detail. But it looks a lot better than a grid with larger grid spaces (blocky).
Just a question. Even for what little contribution people made to it. Wouldn't they have to reprogram every contribution or ask every person if they can change the license of their submitted code?
While I do agree that what they are doing is not "secure" by a long shot. I would have to say this would be the least of our worries. Since PDF is a subset of PostScript wouldn't it follow that Microsoft could make their PDF converter export all text as curves. Making it very difficult to edit. They don't want something editable I'm sure. If its a one way process then you are stuck using their crap.
You spew vitriolic hatred toward companies - whose purpose it is to grow, excel, and be as profitable as possible. You want to bop along with your ipod, munching Doritos and sniggering about how mean the record companies are because last year downloads were 10 cents cheaper.
I would say there is a certain amount of greed associated with charging more for an album purchased online (the cheaper distribution method by an order of magnitude), than on store shelves.
All these people in the industry devote their lives to the industry and work incredibly hard to achieve their goals. You (or I) don't know the first thing about the pressures and demands these people face day in, day out. But you don't have any problem scraping your fingernails on the chalkboard of whininess, and proclaiming "If anyone changes the price of music, I'll just steal it! Waaahhhhh"
Funny I've devoted my life to my industry and work incredibly hard to meet my goals. The pressures they face are no less contrived than the pressures you or I face. The market has to play to what is willing to be paid. Distribution is cheap now. There are no reasons for the price to go up.
Do you work for free? Have you ever changed jobs to make more money? Do you want to get by in life with more than barely subsisting in a cave with a hunk of meat? Then aren't YOU the "greedy bastard"?
A more sensible analogy would be, have you ever had to change your product price to meet demand?
Slashdot Mirror
Except you have no reason not to update something that automatically updates itself and for free.
AJAX is using Javascript RPC methods. So that part of the program is running in your browser and the other part on the server.
GPL can use BSD code, but BSD code cannot use GPL code.
Or with Firebird you could go with FLAP.
The most feature full. Try Firebird or PostgresQL.
Oh come on, its obviously worked wonders for GM and Ford.
What the hell is the problem here? Just start up their own root servers for their own roots. Just leave the existing ones as are. You know how bad that would piss off businesses in their countries if they tried to break off? They have no real option as far as obtaining control of US run root servers. Give it up. .com .net .gov = USA. Sorry.
Wow completely and totally tested. What have you traced the code running through each possible branch of instructions in their program. Aren't you reverse engineering then? You know thats illegal in the US... But seriously though, a testing lab only PROVES the observed output will occur only when the exact scenario down to the supplied data, the time of day, or whatever source of data the program mysteriously pulls from occurs. Without the source, a user can not certify jack, and actually know what he/her is talking about. The rest is purely good faith. This is not true for open source where computer scientists are fairly widely available if you need help. Heck, the kid down the street who can program can probably help you. This availability is in stark contrast to your car engineering liability, which despite differing greatly in severity of outcomes (usually), also differs greatly in the number of people who can actually assist in discovery, diagnosis, and fixing the problem. Assuming its really something that they would initiate a recall for. Also, I think liability should only be an issue where there was some kind of exchange, not just a gift.
All I'm saying is that open source devs should always have the RIGHT to disclaim any express or implied warranty of correctness. I'm not saying they can't pick up that liability if they want. That would be fine. Good luck with it, if you have no other form of income. I'm not saying they can't certify their own code. But there is a very large difference between freely offering for public consumption and certifying of correctness. Give one, charge for the other if you want them to do it. Of course with the proprietary applications (the ones purchased at least, which is all I intend to refer to) the liability should be limited explicitly to the claims set forth by the company in packaging or otherwise. And a license agreement, if applicable, should be obviously placed and freely accessible, if they wish to also disclaim such things.
Exactly, my point. If you want liability for open source software, do exactly as you say. Pay somebody to certify the reliability of a release of software, and as such you can sue if they are wrong.
Isn't it weird how several people, in almost unison, just suddenly decided: "Hey software developers need to be held liable for bugs in their code." It makes you wonder about their backgrounds (read second paragraph). I'm sure this has nothing to do with open source software developers being financially incapable of being held liable for flaws in software they donated. On the other side, I do agree that closed source (AND ONLY CLOSED SOURCE) software makers should definetely be held liable, as there is no other means of recourse in the event of software failure. Whereas, open source license or not, spells out exactly what it will do, line-for-line, and you can either take it or leave it.
What volume of work do you do? And in what field?
You're right, people in the United States are stupid. Just look at our president. Standard citizen. But while I do agree that it shouldn't just be flat majority rule, it most definetely shouldn't be corporate rule. Corporate entities should have no control whatsoever over PERSONAL freedoms. Keep them in their own domain.
Whats stopping you from just having two digital cameras? What you just like to pay for film and processing? Digital cameras really are to the point that you don't need film anymore.
Or you can use an open source VM (such as in python) and still be able to fix it yourself.
Yeah, also doesn't it seem like something so unsustainable sure has sustained, with much success, for quite a while now. This guy must be my old discrete math teacher.
Or to put it in another way. PNG/Jpeg/BMP/TIFF/GIF are raster formats, which means the image is saved as a grid of pixel colors, one color per grid space. SVG/Flash/CDR are vector graphics formats meaning that the image is saved as a set of instruction to draw the image. The instructions are usually something along the lines of draw line, arc, ellipse, curve, fill, gradient, filter. All of these can be scaled up to achieve as high a resolution version of these as you want. But in reality you are only going to see more well defined curves, not necessarily more detail. But it looks a lot better than a grid with larger grid spaces (blocky).
Yes, because that 50 microsecond delay is no match for the 29.97 frames per second on screen.
Just a question. Even for what little contribution people made to it. Wouldn't they have to reprogram every contribution or ask every person if they can change the license of their submitted code?
Just type 'server' at the install CDs lilo prompt.
Hmmmm. True.
While I do agree that what they are doing is not "secure" by a long shot. I would have to say this would be the least of our worries. Since PDF is a subset of PostScript wouldn't it follow that Microsoft could make their PDF converter export all text as curves. Making it very difficult to edit. They don't want something editable I'm sure. If its a one way process then you are stuck using their crap.
Yeah, just long enough to keep its customers to stay with them. And then they'll drop support in the next version.
You spew vitriolic hatred toward companies - whose purpose it is to grow, excel, and be as profitable as possible. You want to bop along with your ipod, munching Doritos and sniggering about how mean the record companies are because last year downloads were 10 cents cheaper.
I would say there is a certain amount of greed associated with charging more for an album purchased online (the cheaper distribution method by an order of magnitude), than on store shelves.
All these people in the industry devote their lives to the industry and work incredibly hard to achieve their goals. You (or I) don't know the first thing about the pressures and demands these people face day in, day out. But you don't have any problem scraping your fingernails on the chalkboard of whininess, and proclaiming "If anyone changes the price of music, I'll just steal it! Waaahhhhh"
Funny I've devoted my life to my industry and work incredibly hard to meet my goals. The pressures they face are no less contrived than the pressures you or I face. The market has to play to what is willing to be paid. Distribution is cheap now. There are no reasons for the price to go up.
Do you work for free? Have you ever changed jobs to make more money? Do you want to get by in life with more than barely subsisting in a cave with a hunk of meat? Then aren't YOU the "greedy bastard"?
A more sensible analogy would be, have you ever had to change your product price to meet demand?
Man slashdot must be about a lightyear away from this server as this article is from February.