The interesting part comes when they clone the lignocellulase gene from the panda (or its gut bacteria). Then they can insert it into other bacteria to make large amounts of lignocellulace. That's where you start getting into high efficiency.
"Yes, the argument is that it's more economical to contribute to a healthy OSS ecosystem than it is to either leech off of an unhealthy OSS ecosystem or buy proprietary."
And that sentence basically sums it up. It's not about the contracts specified with open source, it's about morals.
My quote there has nothing to do with morals. It's about practical self-interest.
Must be pretty horrible being you, unable to trust anyone.
There was an implicit "with power" after that "they can't be trusted". The only awful part is seeing people making the same predictible mistakes (e.g. hoping that Obama would be different).
The idea that life is a game, and the one who is richest (in money terms) when he dies wins is relatively primitive.
I would agree absolutely. What does this have to do with the rest of the thread though?
Many people in government work because they want a better world, and not for the money.
They are the biggest fools of them all.
Yes, I am idealistic. I think it is that what it takes to be truly alive.
If you don't see the world realistically, you won't ever know what needs to be done to reach your ideal. The ideal is peace and freedom. A realistic look at the world tells you that this is incompatible with authority.
They're still better at it than proprietary software. In the worst case scenario, you can fix it yourself or hire someone to. In the best case scenario, I've had, on some rare occasions, bugs fixed in open source software the same day I reported them. I've never had a bug fixed in any proprietary software ever.
Money they saved by going open source. It will cost less to help collectively maintain open software than it will to purchase a license for proprietary software.
This is especially true because whatever you say, making actual contributions takes time and isn't really high in the list of companies priorities
If they're using open source software, they must value what that software does for them. If nobody helps maintain it, it will go away. Complaining about contributing back to open source software is like complaining about the food you have to buy for the goose that lays golden eggs.
They don't have unlimited access to cash or resources.
Yes, the argument is that it's more economical to contribute to a healthy OSS ecosystem than it is to either leech off of an unhealthy OSS ecosystem or buy proprietary.
The second should be handled by a hardlink and $0.
I'd use an alias if I needed to express that more simply. Getting growisofs to behave differently if called by a different name would require changes to the code, if I understand what you're suggesting correctly.
K3b is total overkill for simply writing an image to disc. I can have the disc burning on the command line in the time it would take me to find the k3b icon, let alone starting the program, finding the burn image option, and navigating to the image file.
When it comes to UIs, a command is worth a thousand icons.
Seriously. People always say that Windows is easy, or intuitive, or user friendly or whatever. This kind of thing shows just how wrong that is. Completely obvious features that other operating systems have had for years are just now being added to Windows. e.g. Windows 7 still doesn't ship with virtual desktops for some reason.
Most windows users are completely confounded by the concept of an.iso. If you ask most windows users to burn an iso for you, they will almost certainly burn it as a file not an image.
I'm guessing their DMCA officers just wait for requests and then investigate the files and then delete them. Are there even any negative repercussions for the offending uploader? If so, just do it anonymously.
The DMCA allows copyright holders to subpoena the personal information of the uploader from the ISP. The copyright holder then has every remedy available to him by law.
Sure, it's not possible for everybody to come and get whatever they want but it's quite simple for me to upload a few albums and sent the links over to my friends to get a zip download.
Exactly how it should be. A free transaction between two willing parties. There's no reason to get any third parties involved.
This is one of the reasons why copyright is impossible to enforce. You literally have to inspect every communication between everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty miffed. I just installed Linux on a new laptop from kernel.org last weekend. I was just getting comfortable and now I'll have to reinstall.
This is a good move, but the fact that it was banned at all still tells me that the Germans have a problem with authoritarianism.
Someone forgot to make the proper campaign contributions.
Oh, I didn't know that. Is it very different from emacs lisp? It would make sense to stick with one extension language.
Why not?
The interesting part comes when they clone the lignocellulase gene from the panda (or its gut bacteria). Then they can insert it into other bacteria to make large amounts of lignocellulace. That's where you start getting into high efficiency.
Anyone who actually needs a vpn will get one after making the appropriate bribes.
I think you underestimate the corrupting influence of power.
Perhaps next time she will be wise enough to encrypt private data with PGP!
If your computer has been owned, whether by hackers or lojack, PGP is no help. Keyloggers defeat PGP.
Spending money on computer repair is always dumb.
"Yes, the argument is that it's more economical to contribute to a healthy OSS ecosystem than it is to either leech off of an unhealthy OSS ecosystem or buy proprietary."
And that sentence basically sums it up. It's not about the contracts specified with open source, it's about morals.
My quote there has nothing to do with morals. It's about practical self-interest.
Must be pretty horrible being you, unable to trust anyone.
There was an implicit "with power" after that "they can't be trusted". The only awful part is seeing people making the same predictible mistakes (e.g. hoping that Obama would be different).
The idea that life is a game, and the one who is richest (in money terms) when he dies wins is relatively primitive.
I would agree absolutely. What does this have to do with the rest of the thread though?
Many people in government work because they want a better world, and not for the money.
They are the biggest fools of them all.
Yes, I am idealistic. I think it is that what it takes to be truly alive.
If you don't see the world realistically, you won't ever know what needs to be done to reach your ideal. The ideal is peace and freedom. A realistic look at the world tells you that this is incompatible with authority.
Of course governments are composed of people like everyone else. That's why they can't be trusted!
They're still better at it than proprietary software. In the worst case scenario, you can fix it yourself or hire someone to. In the best case scenario, I've had, on some rare occasions, bugs fixed in open source software the same day I reported them. I've never had a bug fixed in any proprietary software ever.
Contributing back takes money
Money they saved by going open source. It will cost less to help collectively maintain open software than it will to purchase a license for proprietary software.
This is especially true because whatever you say, making actual contributions takes time and isn't really high in the list of companies priorities
If they're using open source software, they must value what that software does for them. If nobody helps maintain it, it will go away. Complaining about contributing back to open source software is like complaining about the food you have to buy for the goose that lays golden eggs.
They don't have unlimited access to cash or resources.
Yes, the argument is that it's more economical to contribute to a healthy OSS ecosystem than it is to either leech off of an unhealthy OSS ecosystem or buy proprietary.
Which has done little to improve the quality of government. Campaign contributions are bribes for all practical purposes.
The second should be handled by a hardlink and $0.
I'd use an alias if I needed to express that more simply. Getting growisofs to behave differently if called by a different name would require changes to the code, if I understand what you're suggesting correctly.
K3b is total overkill for simply writing an image to disc. I can have the disc burning on the command line in the time it would take me to find the k3b icon, let alone starting the program, finding the burn image option, and navigating to the image file.
When it comes to UIs, a command is worth a thousand icons.
Except the spammers are corporations. And the bribes are campaign contributions. And the public officials are, oh they're still public officials.
Ask a linux user to burn an iso and it's done in one line. 'cdrecord redbook.iso' Done.
If it's DVDs it's slightly different 'growisofs -dvd-compat -Z /dev/dvdrw=dvd.iso'.
Wasn't that easy?
There's a better reason. Some of us don't have speakers in the office.
Seriously. People always say that Windows is easy, or intuitive, or user friendly or whatever. This kind of thing shows just how wrong that is. Completely obvious features that other operating systems have had for years are just now being added to Windows. e.g. Windows 7 still doesn't ship with virtual desktops for some reason.
Why would you walk your grandmother or parents through a command over the phone when you could just ssh in and type it yourself?
Most windows users are completely confounded by the concept of an .iso. If you ask most windows users to burn an iso for you, they will almost certainly burn it as a file not an image.
I'm guessing their DMCA officers just wait for requests and then investigate the files and then delete them. Are there even any negative repercussions for the offending uploader? If so, just do it anonymously.
The DMCA allows copyright holders to subpoena the personal information of the uploader from the ISP. The copyright holder then has every remedy available to him by law.
Sure, it's not possible for everybody to come and get whatever they want but it's quite simple for me to upload a few albums and sent the links over to my friends to get a zip download.
Exactly how it should be. A free transaction between two willing parties. There's no reason to get any third parties involved.
This is one of the reasons why copyright is impossible to enforce. You literally have to inspect every communication between everyone.
There's nothing stopping you from using The Pirate Bay to host torrents of your own files if you want.