But all this questions have nothing to do with whether the project is open source or not. This questions arises with every software you use.
In fact some of those questions are less risky for open source projects. With CSS projects only the developer have the ownership, you need to trust him, he can only fix anything and can maintain the project. With an OSS project you have the choice to stay with the original developer or to find a better maintainer of the project or to do it yourself.
That doesn't make any sense at all, you just throw in some buzz-words like "ownership, security, responsibility, reaction time". You comment reads like from some marketing department of Microsoft.
Governments can do open source, and they should all the time. Because there is no sound reason against open source for governments. If anything else, open source should be the philosophy behind a democratic government, which is paid by the people, works for the people and accumulates data from the people for the people.
The problem is always the neo-liberals with their free-market dogma. Don't support local economy, but make open bidding where all international heavyweights and convicted monopolies like Microsoft can bid. Don't write software and support your own I.T. department but outsource it to some cloud.
What the government should do is write open source software, so that every department can use the software for free and have the ability to modify the software for their needs. The government should biased for local software companies and disadvantage international cooperations like Microsoft, because that would foster the local economy and create know-how. The government should have their own I.T. departments because of the sensible nature of the citizens data and national security. And last, it should use open standards where possible and create new open standards where no such standards exists, because of the importance and the need for durability of the citizens data.
I just quote some Peruvian Congressman on this issue: http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-05-06-012-26-OS-SM-LL "It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions. That is in any case a marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:
Free access to public information by the citizen. Permanence of public data. Security of the State and citizens.
To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indespensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.
To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.
To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*. "
Why is LibreOffice not recognizable or not pronounceable? I would rather see to take all the good parts out of OpenOffice into LibreOffice that could not have been done before and just end OpenOffice. Now that the main development will be coming from TDF anyway and all the distributions are going for LibreOffice, there will be more confusion if LO would end and OO would be resurrected.
I see the turn more like a political one. The Apache Foundation criticized Oracle for Java and left the JCP EC, now Oracle is giving them something to come back maybe? And at the same time punish the TDO for forking OpenOffice by giving OO to Apache and as such not recognize TDF as a legit successor.
The Zone-H have put down the bugs per system and server but not what type of security bug per system and server. It would be advantageous to see how many, for example, File Inclusion there was for each system/server and how long the File Inclusion bug was open for each system/server.
Plus, Zone-H talks about all the system, not only the httpd server and the kernel, but also for example, about CMS systems, like OsCommerce CMS. You don't want to say that some remote upload flaw in some CMS system have something do to with Linux or Apache?
On top of it, there was never a security breach like the CodeRed Worm (2001, 359,000 hosts), for Linux/Apache, or the other worms and trojans, you can look up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_computer_viruses_and_worms Almost all since 1995 are for Windows.
So, in conclusion, no one have reality caught up with Windows by any scale.
"While I personally like nuclear power much more than polluting the air with coal power plants, were the emissions also contain a lot of radioactivity and of course CO2 it feels irresponsible to use a technology as long as the waste problem is completely unsolved, at least in Germany."
I'm also agree with you. Nuclear power is the best energy source if done properly. But the problem with the nuclear is that it's never done properly. It's much a political problem that a technological one. If I see how badly the authorities and the company are doing in Fukushima, it's just scares me.
Because of the costs and the risks of a nuclear plant, the concentration is of money and as the result the corruption is just too much , as seen in Japan. It would be ok with a coal plant, a gas plant or even a water dam because if there goes something wrong, a few people will die but it will not leave a radioactive pit for the next 10 generations.
Also the thing with the nuclear garbage. Even if you tell me for 100% that the garbage is save, how do I know if you aren't corrupt and you aren't paid by the nuclear lobby, or if you are accurate? I don't think you can tell me for the next 1000 years that the cave in which we put the radioactive garbage will be save.
What wealthier time in the future? If you are China, India and Brazil maybe. If we don't start now to invest in new technology there will be no wealthier time. All the western countries have already a very low economic grow. What do you think will happen with the price of gas and oil in 30 years if China, India and Brazil will get a living standard like Europe?
I think you don't understand that there is a difference in short time profits and long time development. If all would think like you, we would still have horses and steam trains. Why should be invest in new technologies if the old ones are good, just extend the current infrastructure. Or rather, we wouldn't have even steam trains. Because all the trains and highways are developed directly or indirectly by the governments.
"Note the key line, "resources will get so expensive." The corporations and people will naturally switch over when fossil fuel-based generation are more expensive than renewable sources. So why use government to "pressure" what's going to happen anyway? High prices will provide all the pressure you want here and you don't even have to lift a finger to make it happen."
No. What actually is happening is that the government will invade countries to build new pipelines to transport gas and oil 1000s of km. The cooperations will invest every penny they have in squeezing 1 promille more efficient oil and gas extraction. They will build more off-shore drills and they will even try to squeeze oil out of sand which have a horrible efficiency ratio. They will do all they can to not to invest in R&D in risky new technologies.
Because there is a big risk to invest in new technologies and no cooperation will do it without any government pressure. How can any cooperation like EON, RWE or Vattenfall explain to the shareholders that they are going to invest xx billions in a new and risky technology, which no guarantee of success, while the competition is investing in oil, gas and nuclear and make more profits in the short term?
The cooperations are not interested in what will happen in 30 or 50 years. The cooperations had already 30 years to come up with anything. But they choose to sit on their nuclear power plants, knowing very well that they are going to expire (there was even a contract for how long each power plant can be online), but they did nothing.
So it's about time the government is pressuring them. We don't want to give them more money. We pressure them that we want no more nuclear power plants. They did enough profits now they need to invest considerable amount of it to come up with new technology.
As a German I think it's the perfect time to ditch the nuclear power and finally invest some of the billions of moneys that the electric cooperations taking and come up with a sustainable and green energy source. Without any pressure from the government we will use oil, gas, coal and nuclear until all of this resources will get so expensive and until we get a some major catastrophes, because the cooperations don't care one bit about the future.
Everyone has known that the nuclear power plants have a limited lifetime. But what was the solution: just extend the lifetime. The electric companies took subsidies, tax cuts, new laws, and they knew that eventually the nuclear power plants are going to be shut down and they done nothing.
I'm really glad our politicians have the balls to say that from now on there will be a major technology shift. Yes, now the alternative energy sources sucks ass, but wait until we transfer some billions for R&D. Of course we can't shut down the nuclear plants over night, but we have to start someday. And it is always the government who is in the position and should have the balls to tell the market to create new technologies. Hell, without the governments pushing for nuclear, there would be no nuclear electric cooperations.
Now it's the prefect time to put pressure on the market to push for R&D for better energy sources. Without such pressure the banks will just continue to sit on their tax-bailout money and not lend to risky enterprises and the big energy cooperations will just waste the money on shareholders. Better now then in 30 years, where we actually don't have any other choice but to put the reactors down and because there was no pressure to invest in R&D we will get stuck down in the middle ages.
And please let it stay that way. I swear, if Linux ever changes the behavior of selecting+middle click I will switch to Windows. That feature alone is just so freaking awesome. For all the mouse-addicts, like me: just select a text, drag your mouse, middle click and you have copy&pasted it.
Can you explain that? I'm a Twitter user in the UK and I heart of this affair that some guy, name him Ryan Gibbs have some trouble with his girlfriend or what ever, and I write it on Twitter. I didn't know that he have a super injunction because the source I have it from didn't mentioned it. How I am suppose to know about that super injunction? Are the super injunction posted in the news paper or some other way? Shouldn't I get the injunction from this guy before he can sue me of breaking the injunction? Shouldn't he sue the source and not me for breaking the injunction?
If Twitter has known about the injunction shouldn't be Twitter be liable for it's users and shouldn't Twitter censor the users? And if not, shouldn't the guy first send to every Twitter user a super injunction so the Twitter users know about it and can obey the law? Or need the users first check if there is an injunction before they can post anything about anyone?
I think nobody here gets the implication of this. Forget the straw man of rich people using their airplanes and have carbon emission or something, but think that: A government organization is required by law to keep track of private citizens (in this case the Federal Aviation Administration) and a private cooperation (the Wall Street Journal) gets the information via a FOIA request and can build a private database of it.
What about a FOIA request for each Social Security Number? Or a FOIA request for each mobile phone number? Or to any other information that the government is keeping track of its citizens?
"So it is not Google's fault, Google has no choice about it."
Yeah right, Google could just say NO. But than Google would lose a few million bucks, but why do I care? They had a choice and they choose to just accept the terms of the movie studios. So why shouldn't I be pissed at Google and the movie studios?
But in commercial products you are stuck with the product for good or for worse. Best example, is Windows Vista or Office with the ribbon interface. In OSS products you are free to choose and to change.
You want a simple interface, why you don't just use Xfce or Enlithement? I like where KDE4 is heading, I dislike Gnome 3 and Unity.
1) yes and thanks to the US foreign policy we will see more countries getting nukes just to be save from the evil US empire invading countries for no good reason. Like north korea.
2) because the US government is more interested in the Wall street and deregulation of the financial sector there will be no economic growth for the middle class.
3) Inflation in China? Are you kidding me? It's a little more then 5% and the economic growth of China is over 10%. The Chinese government have realized that inflation at such low levels are actually very good for the economic growth. While the US wasting trillions of $ to keep the inflation low to make sure that the Wall Street guys not loosing any profits your economy have stagnated.
4) Investing in infrastructure? The US government is broke and now the US is actually cutting down government in all areas (except for the military of course). The US is spending trillions in stupid wars while cutting in health care, education.
Services you well to invest in a core business technology that is proprietary and is controlled by a single company. But Microsoft is so big, their technology is a save bet? No, Microsoft is free to change their technology however and whenever they wish, because they are so big they won't care about small firms.
My ques is that your firm is now replacing the software with a.NET implementation.
What problems do you people have? The FSF points out a TOS that strips your rights off, takes your pictures, movies, etc. and practically says "Even if you bought the 3DS for 250$ you don't own it and we take every content you have created with it as ours".
So, the FSF points that out and stars a campaign to fight for your basic rights, like free speech, ownership and copyright, and all you say is "Fuck you FSF, stop making negative campaigns and give me more free stuff".
Re:The question nobody wants to ask....
on
Perl 5.14 Released
·
· Score: 1
if ( isApproximatelyEqual(10.356, 10.356) ) { } if ( isVisuallyEqual('a', 'a') ) { }
Wow that was easy. Do you have any other brilliant ideas for new operators?
"Killing one's enemy is never the ideal course of action. Sometimes it is necessary. But far better for everyone if they become your friends - or at the very least, renounce being your sworn enemy."
You know what, fuck you. We are not in the middle ages where we kill our enemy and eat their heart. Bin Laden was a terrorist, and he was killed in a foreign country inside his house by a killing squad. If the US were in war with this country and the US soldiers would have killed Bin Laden in a battle then I would agree with you.
But he was killed by a kill-squad in a foreign country in his house. His wife was killed, too. No due-process, no innocent before proven guilty, there was no judge, no defense, no jury. Just hunt them down and kill'em all.
The US have lost any creditability in my eyes. They are not the great fighter for freedom and justices anymore, but just an empire that can invade countries and kill people. The US is now just an evil empire, like the British Empire to the Indian people was. The British Empire killed Thousands of Indian people all in the name of bringing them "civilization". The US is the same.
No, the real difference is that in front of a restaurant, mall or train station the people are not willing to get a pat-down, x-ray or to be forced to take their shoes of. Thus there is no money for the TSA or any manufacture of the expensive X-ray and bomb detectors.
This whole thing is just a big scam, just like the US military bases across the world. It's just a big run for tax money. Just like the US military bases does nothing the whole time and are basically holiday mansions, so does this TSA does nothing and is living from the fear of the people.
Mark my words: the TSA will not go away for the next 30 to 50 years. The x-rays and detector machines will get more expensive and the search will get more invasive. The politicians will do nothing against it and will just they "yes" to everything the TSA demands, because of fear of a terrorist attack and that the public will blame them.
"Terrorists could hide a bomb in a diaper, and we don't seem to have anything much better than pat-downs to detect it. "
Terrorists could just go to the next mall in kill 1000 people with a bomb. Or they could go to a train station and kill 500 people. They could just go to the next restaurant and kill 50 people.
What we really should be doing is just accept terrorists as a threat but not overreacting. We should spend our tax money for real things that are proven to save lives, like improving highways, get more police officers, improving hospitals and health care, invest in more public transportation.
We could even just give capital to the third-world countries, or invest in their education and infrastructure. Even that would reduce the risk of a terrorist attack way more then the stupid TSA. But instead we giving Millions of money to people to search babies, kids and some random people so we have a one in a million chance to find anything.
"Even if the code was released under GPLv3 (and it isn't) they would be under no obligation to release the code because they own it and can do whatever they like"
Now Google owns the code so they are free to choose the license under with they release the binary and/or the code. But if they would have chosen the GPL then they would have to release the code as well. The GPL requires you to do it if you redistribute the binary to include the code and every change you have made to the code.
Slashdot Mirror
But all this questions have nothing to do with whether the project is open source or not. This questions arises with every software you use.
In fact some of those questions are less risky for open source projects.
With CSS projects only the developer have the ownership, you need to trust him, he can only fix anything and can maintain the project. With an OSS project you have the choice to stay with the original developer or to find a better maintainer of the project or to do it yourself.
That doesn't make any sense at all, you just throw in some buzz-words like "ownership, security, responsibility, reaction time". You comment reads like from some marketing department of Microsoft.
Governments can do open source, and they should all the time. Because there is no sound reason against open source for governments. If anything else, open source should be the philosophy behind a democratic government, which is paid by the people, works for the people and accumulates data from the people for the people.
The problem is always the neo-liberals with their free-market dogma. Don't support local economy, but make open bidding where all international heavyweights and convicted monopolies like Microsoft can bid. Don't write software and support your own I.T. department but outsource it to some cloud.
What the government should do is write open source software, so that every department can use the software for free and have the ability to modify the software for their needs. The government should biased for local software companies and disadvantage international cooperations like Microsoft, because that would foster the local economy and create know-how. The government should have their own I.T. departments because of the sensible nature of the citizens data and national security. And last, it should use open standards where possible and create new open standards where no such standards exists, because of the importance and the need for durability of the citizens data.
I just quote some Peruvian Congressman on this issue:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-05-06-012-26-OS-SM-LL
"It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions. That is in any case a marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:
Free access to public information by the citizen.
Permanence of public data.
Security of the State and citizens.
To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indespensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.
To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.
To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*. "
Why is LibreOffice not recognizable or not pronounceable?
I would rather see to take all the good parts out of OpenOffice into LibreOffice that could not have been done before and just end OpenOffice. Now that the main development will be coming from TDF anyway and all the distributions are going for LibreOffice, there will be more confusion if LO would end and OO would be resurrected.
I see the turn more like a political one. The Apache Foundation criticized Oracle for Java and left the JCP EC, now Oracle is giving them something to come back maybe? And at the same time punish the TDO for forking OpenOffice by giving OO to Apache and as such not recognize TDF as a legit successor.
Yes the article is quite old. But for the rest of your comment:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/#myth3
"One popular claim is that, “there are more security alerts for Linux than for Windows, and therefore Linux is less secure than Windows”."
The Zone-H have put down the bugs per system and server but not what type of security bug per system and server. It would be advantageous to see how many, for example, File Inclusion there was for each system/server and how long the File Inclusion bug was open for each system/server.
Plus, Zone-H talks about all the system, not only the httpd server and the kernel, but also for example, about CMS systems, like OsCommerce CMS. You don't want to say that some remote upload flaw in some CMS system have something do to with Linux or Apache?
On top of it, there was never a security breach like the CodeRed Worm (2001, 359,000 hosts), for Linux/Apache, or the other worms and trojans, you can look up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_computer_viruses_and_worms
Almost all since 1995 are for Windows.
So, in conclusion, no one have reality caught up with Windows by any scale.
Here is a very good article on security of Microsoft IIS vs. Apache on a Linux system:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/
Have fun reading.
"While I personally like nuclear power much more than polluting the air with coal power plants, were the emissions also contain a lot of radioactivity and of course CO2 it feels irresponsible to use a technology as long as the waste problem is completely unsolved, at least in Germany."
I'm also agree with you. Nuclear power is the best energy source if done properly. But the problem with the nuclear is that it's never done properly. It's much a political problem that a technological one. If I see how badly the authorities and the company are doing in Fukushima, it's just scares me.
Because of the costs and the risks of a nuclear plant, the concentration is of money and as the result the corruption is just too much , as seen in Japan. It would be ok with a coal plant, a gas plant or even a water dam because if there goes something wrong, a few people will die but it will not leave a radioactive pit for the next 10 generations.
Also the thing with the nuclear garbage. Even if you tell me for 100% that the garbage is save, how do I know if you aren't corrupt and you aren't paid by the nuclear lobby, or if you are accurate? I don't think you can tell me for the next 1000 years that the cave in which we put the radioactive garbage will be save.
What wealthier time in the future? If you are China, India and Brazil maybe. If we don't start now to invest in new technology there will be no wealthier time. All the western countries have already a very low economic grow. What do you think will happen with the price of gas and oil in 30 years if China, India and Brazil will get a living standard like Europe?
I think you don't understand that there is a difference in short time profits and long time development. If all would think like you, we would still have horses and steam trains. Why should be invest in new technologies if the old ones are good, just extend the current infrastructure. Or rather, we wouldn't have even steam trains. Because all the trains and highways are developed directly or indirectly by the governments.
"Note the key line, "resources will get so expensive." The corporations and people will naturally switch over when fossil fuel-based generation are more expensive than renewable sources. So why use government to "pressure" what's going to happen anyway? High prices will provide all the pressure you want here and you don't even have to lift a finger to make it happen."
No. What actually is happening is that the government will invade countries to build new pipelines to transport gas and oil 1000s of km. The cooperations will invest every penny they have in squeezing 1 promille more efficient oil and gas extraction. They will build more off-shore drills and they will even try to squeeze oil out of sand which have a horrible efficiency ratio. They will do all they can to not to invest in R&D in risky new technologies.
Because there is a big risk to invest in new technologies and no cooperation will do it without any government pressure. How can any cooperation like EON, RWE or Vattenfall explain to the shareholders that they are going to invest xx billions in a new and risky technology, which no guarantee of success, while the competition is investing in oil, gas and nuclear and make more profits in the short term?
The cooperations are not interested in what will happen in 30 or 50 years. The cooperations had already 30 years to come up with anything. But they choose to sit on their nuclear power plants, knowing very well that they are going to expire (there was even a contract for how long each power plant can be online), but they did nothing.
So it's about time the government is pressuring them. We don't want to give them more money. We pressure them that we want no more nuclear power plants. They did enough profits now they need to invest considerable amount of it to come up with new technology.
As a German I think it's the perfect time to ditch the nuclear power and finally invest some of the billions of moneys that the electric cooperations taking and come up with a sustainable and green energy source. Without any pressure from the government we will use oil, gas, coal and nuclear until all of this resources will get so expensive and until we get a some major catastrophes, because the cooperations don't care one bit about the future.
Everyone has known that the nuclear power plants have a limited lifetime. But what was the solution: just extend the lifetime. The electric companies took subsidies, tax cuts, new laws, and they knew that eventually the nuclear power plants are going to be shut down and they done nothing.
I'm really glad our politicians have the balls to say that from now on there will be a major technology shift. Yes, now the alternative energy sources sucks ass, but wait until we transfer some billions for R&D. Of course we can't shut down the nuclear plants over night, but we have to start someday. And it is always the government who is in the position and should have the balls to tell the market to create new technologies. Hell, without the governments pushing for nuclear, there would be no nuclear electric cooperations.
Now it's the prefect time to put pressure on the market to push for R&D for better energy sources. Without such pressure the banks will just continue to sit on their tax-bailout money and not lend to risky enterprises and the big energy cooperations will just waste the money on shareholders. Better now then in 30 years, where we actually don't have any other choice but to put the reactors down and because there was no pressure to invest in R&D we will get stuck down in the middle ages.
And please let it stay that way. I swear, if Linux ever changes the behavior of selecting+middle click I will switch to Windows. That feature alone is just so freaking awesome. For all the mouse-addicts, like me: just select a text, drag your mouse, middle click and you have copy&pasted it.
Can you explain that?
I'm a Twitter user in the UK and I heart of this affair that some guy, name him Ryan Gibbs have some trouble with his girlfriend or what ever, and I write it on Twitter. I didn't know that he have a super injunction because the source I have it from didn't mentioned it. How I am suppose to know about that super injunction? Are the super injunction posted in the news paper or some other way? Shouldn't I get the injunction from this guy before he can sue me of breaking the injunction? Shouldn't he sue the source and not me for breaking the injunction?
If Twitter has known about the injunction shouldn't be Twitter be liable for it's users and shouldn't Twitter censor the users? And if not, shouldn't the guy first send to every Twitter user a super injunction so the Twitter users know about it and can obey the law? Or need the users first check if there is an injunction before they can post anything about anyone?
I think nobody here gets the implication of this. Forget the straw man of rich people using their airplanes and have carbon emission or something, but think that: A government organization is required by law to keep track of private citizens (in this case the Federal Aviation Administration) and a private cooperation (the Wall Street Journal) gets the information via a FOIA request and can build a private database of it.
What about a FOIA request for each Social Security Number? Or a FOIA request for each mobile phone number? Or to any other information that the government is keeping track of its citizens?
"So it is not Google's fault, Google has no choice about it."
Yeah right, Google could just say NO. But than Google would lose a few million bucks, but why do I care? They had a choice and they choose to just accept the terms of the movie studios. So why shouldn't I be pissed at Google and the movie studios?
But in commercial products you are stuck with the product for good or for worse. Best example, is Windows Vista or Office with the ribbon interface. In OSS products you are free to choose and to change.
You want a simple interface, why you don't just use Xfce or Enlithement? I like where KDE4 is heading, I dislike Gnome 3 and Unity.
Is that the "XXX sucks but YYY is great" thread?
KDE3: good, KDE4: great, Gnome3: sucks, Gnome2: sucks, Unity: I don't care
1) yes and thanks to the US foreign policy we will see more countries getting nukes just to be save from the evil US empire invading countries for no good reason. Like north korea.
2) because the US government is more interested in the Wall street and deregulation of the financial sector there will be no economic growth for the middle class.
3) Inflation in China? Are you kidding me? It's a little more then 5% and the economic growth of China is over 10%. The Chinese government have realized that inflation at such low levels are actually very good for the economic growth. While the US wasting trillions of $ to keep the inflation low to make sure that the Wall Street guys not loosing any profits your economy have stagnated.
4) Investing in infrastructure? The US government is broke and now the US is actually cutting down government in all areas (except for the military of course). The US is spending trillions in stupid wars while cutting in health care, education.
Services you well to invest in a core business technology that is proprietary and is controlled by a single company. But Microsoft is so big, their technology is a save bet? No, Microsoft is free to change their technology however and whenever they wish, because they are so big they won't care about small firms.
My ques is that your firm is now replacing the software with a .NET implementation.
You should try in Linux with Wine. I think now the old applications are running better on Linux then on Windows.
What problems do you people have? The FSF points out a TOS that strips your rights off, takes your pictures, movies, etc. and practically says "Even if you bought the 3DS for 250$ you don't own it and we take every content you have created with it as ours".
So, the FSF points that out and stars a campaign to fight for your basic rights, like free speech, ownership and copyright, and all you say is "Fuck you FSF, stop making negative campaigns and give me more free stuff".
if ( isApproximatelyEqual(10.356, 10.356) ) { }
if ( isVisuallyEqual('a', 'a') ) { }
Wow that was easy. Do you have any other brilliant ideas for new operators?
"Killing one's enemy is never the ideal course of action. Sometimes it is necessary. But far better for everyone if they become your friends - or at the very least, renounce being your sworn enemy."
You know what, fuck you. We are not in the middle ages where we kill our enemy and eat their heart. Bin Laden was a terrorist, and he was killed in a foreign country inside his house by a killing squad. If the US were in war with this country and the US soldiers would have killed Bin Laden in a battle then I would agree with you.
But he was killed by a kill-squad in a foreign country in his house. His wife was killed, too. No due-process, no innocent before proven guilty, there was no judge, no defense, no jury. Just hunt them down and kill'em all.
The US have lost any creditability in my eyes. They are not the great fighter for freedom and justices anymore, but just an empire that can invade countries and kill people. The US is now just an evil empire, like the British Empire to the Indian people was. The British Empire killed Thousands of Indian people all in the name of bringing them "civilization". The US is the same.
No, the real difference is that in front of a restaurant, mall or train station the people are not willing to get a pat-down, x-ray or to be forced to take their shoes of. Thus there is no money for the TSA or any manufacture of the expensive X-ray and bomb detectors.
This whole thing is just a big scam, just like the US military bases across the world. It's just a big run for tax money. Just like the US military bases does nothing the whole time and are basically holiday mansions, so does this TSA does nothing and is living from the fear of the people.
Mark my words: the TSA will not go away for the next 30 to 50 years. The x-rays and detector machines will get more expensive and the search will get more invasive. The politicians will do nothing against it and will just they "yes" to everything the TSA demands, because of fear of a terrorist attack and that the public will blame them.
"Terrorists could hide a bomb in a diaper, and we don't seem to have anything much better than pat-downs to detect it. "
Terrorists could just go to the next mall in kill 1000 people with a bomb. Or they could go to a train station and kill 500 people. They could just go to the next restaurant and kill 50 people.
What we really should be doing is just accept terrorists as a threat but not overreacting. We should spend our tax money for real things that are proven to save lives, like improving highways, get more police officers, improving hospitals and health care, invest in more public transportation.
We could even just give capital to the third-world countries, or invest in their education and infrastructure. Even that would reduce the risk of a terrorist attack way more then the stupid TSA. But instead we giving Millions of money to people to search babies, kids and some random people so we have a one in a million chance to find anything.
"Even if the code was released under GPLv3 (and it isn't) they would be under no obligation to release the code because they own it and can do whatever they like"
Now Google owns the code so they are free to choose the license under with they release the binary and/or the code. But if they would have chosen the GPL then they would have to release the code as well. The GPL requires you to do it if you redistribute the binary to include the code and every change you have made to the code.