A loophole in a law often contravenes the intent of the law without technically breaking it. For example, in some places, one may avoid paying taxes to the jurisdiction by forming a second residence in another location, or a commercial property can be built in a residential zone if it is made also for residential use.
Well the point is that he plans to close those loopholes. But generally speaking, when you use a loophole to get around a rule, you're behaving unethically. I think it's reasonable to be upset at the businesses for that.
may also add that my experience (which is 2-3 years old now eventually..) is that FreeBSD had more up to date packages than Ubuntu, and well, Debian stable? Come on..
Unfortunately, it's completely dependent upon the port. Ports are maintained by individuals, not by the product. Sometimes you will find a port which is a little out of date, but the most popular ports are up-to-date.
First you have to know where it is located (for that you either need to install another package to (and you have to know that name too) or make sure you have Internet connection and go to freesbd.org ports page to search for the name
cd/usr/ports make quicksearch name=packagename
You'll find the package. No need to install anything new.
Then you have open the login shell as root, (and you must know how to do that -- it does not automagically prompt you for a password )
"apt-get install foo" doesn't hold your hand, either. Nor did rpm prompt you for a password the last time I used an RPM-based system.
Then you CD to that directory start the build and discover that it tries to download source code for Gnome or KDE then build it -- which will take half a day on some machines....
welcome to the ports system
The FreeBSD maintainers aren't concerned with being trivial to use. They're more concerned with creating a powerful and flexible system.
They focus on this almost to a fault. There's a recent thread on freebsd-questions with the subject "Modern FreeBSD Installer" where a few people are complaining about how unfriendly the current installer is. There's a fairly large base of people who don't want a change to the installer because it's familiar--and once you're familiar with it, you can install the base system in about 5 minutes. But the arcane nature of the installer is such that it turns a lot of new users off from the beginning.
Keep in mind that FreeBSD is an advanced user's OS. While its documentation is really quite good, it isn't going to hold your hand once you're on the shell. Reading through the handbook ( http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports-using.html for specific information on the ports system) before or during use will help you learn a lot about the system.
That's great, but the poster was talking about how BT is better because it's built in.
When there's an equally tiny USB dongle for a proprietary wireless mouse, I may take a look at them. But I haven't seen them yet, so I stick with crappy Bluetooth mice.
Oh, the mouse has to work in Linux, too, which is sometimes an issue for the proprietary wireless ones.
Your argument is meritless with regards to iPhones (at least), as there's a little notice in the box that says you must agree to the EULA. I assume that iPods have the same notice, however I don't own one, so I can't say for sure.
I'm not saying that the case has merit--rather, I was pointing out that libel is illegal. The person to whom I responded seemed to think that it isn't.
You don't get to tell me how to use the chair I bought from you, apple don't get the right to tell me how to use the iPod. They don't have to support it, but they have no right to stop me taking it apart, talking to it with other software or shoving it up my arse if that's what I want to do.
Ah, the EULA. It's happy to invalidate all of your little beliefs.
I know it sounds like I'm trolling, but I'm really not. The difference between a chair and an embedded device with software is that the former doesn't (usually) come with an EULA. In the United States, EULA enforceability is still somewhat uncertain, with different courts and states having different opinions on the subject. Nonetheless, they're usually treated as enforceable until a judge says otherwise, if for no other reason than there's not a lot of case law on it, and a full trial will need to be held in most cases to ascertain the enforceability.
And frankly, they're most likely going to eventually be considered enforceable for standard clauses, with absurd clauses being dismissed immediately (rights to your first born, for example) and grey area clauses enforceability being determined by a judge.
Fair enough. I don't order from them that often, but once you said that, I do remember having a harder time getting their site to play nicely with NoScript a while back.
Searching in pages: pleaaze... that has nothing to do with dhtml based pages! You can search within pages as long as you are document centric and dont have a rich client application running!
I will give an example, most of the stuff mentioned can be done via applying a hash value which represents some kind of application state (hash because it is alterable from the script without causing page refreshes)
I think you're both coming to the discussion with a different set of assumptions. You're absolutely right that for a web application, many of his gripes don't make sense. Realistically, though, many companies use DHTML for content which is static.
http://digg.com/ is a perfect example. Disable Javascript and go to the comments on one of their stories. Now turn on Javascript. There's actual content which is inaccessible unless you have Javascript turned on. Slashdot has a similar system, except it gracefully falls back when Javascript isn't available. However it's still troublesome to bookmark certain things like a specific comment if you're using the Web 2.0 version.
Think that's too close to an application? Try http://www.toyota.com./ The site ostensibly provides information on the company and their product--relatively static content compared to a lot of the Internet--but the site isn't navigable without Javascript. It's barely a Web 2.0 site, yet it's horribly difficult to navigate.
I'm not just complaining about Javascript. Just about any time that Javascript is required for navigation, the site is not going to be screen-reader accessible.
Anyway, the point is that lots of sites unnecessarily use DHTML and make interacting with the site in a conventional way difficult, even if they're serving static content and not providing a web application. I suspect that it's these sites that the grandparent is complaining about.
Supposedly, there are no implicit bandwidth caps in most business plans, either. But from a reliability standpoint, you're right. You aren't going to get five nines with any DSL provider.
I've been driving for over 20 years without a single accident. Not one. I'm not worried about it. Regardless if I care or not, why should anyone be trying to force me to wear a seat belt? How does it help them?
If someone t-bones you, your car will still have momentum, but you may well have ended up in the passenger's seat. You'll have a hard time hitting the brakes or being able to control your car in any way.
If you are wearing a seatbelt, you'll still be in the driver's seat, and you'll have the capacity to control the vehicle.
There are other reasons that not wearing safety belts can impact society, but they're more questionable. Seat belts measurably reduce the damage your body incurs in a crash, so if you choose not to wear one, you're more likely to be injured, require medical treatment, and take up a slot at the hospital that someone else could have used. The problem with this argument, of course, is that it could be applied to any number of unhealthy activities and severely restrict our freedoms.
The justification for copyright is absolutely about the public good. These days, though, people tend to think that copyright is actually about ownership rather than a limited monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't find that anywhere in the actual document. Which page is it on, and which edition of the document?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole
A loophole in a law often contravenes the intent of the law without technically breaking it. For example, in some places, one may avoid paying taxes to the jurisdiction by forming a second residence in another location, or a commercial property can be built in a residential zone if it is made also for residential use.
Simple: Don't ever go to war.
What about when we are attacked?
Well the point is that he plans to close those loopholes. But generally speaking, when you use a loophole to get around a rule, you're behaving unethically. I think it's reasonable to be upset at the businesses for that.
may also add that my experience (which is 2-3 years old now eventually ..) is that FreeBSD had more up to date packages than Ubuntu, and well, Debian stable? Come on ..
Unfortunately, it's completely dependent upon the port. Ports are maintained by individuals, not by the product. Sometimes you will find a port which is a little out of date, but the most popular ports are up-to-date.
First you have to know where it is located
(for that you either need to install another package to (and you have to know that name too) or make sure you have Internet connection and go to freesbd.org ports page to search for the name
cd /usr/ports
make quicksearch name=packagename
You'll find the package. No need to install anything new.
Then you have open the login shell as root,
(and you must know how to do that -- it does not automagically prompt you for a password )
"apt-get install foo" doesn't hold your hand, either. Nor did rpm prompt you for a password the last time I used an RPM-based system.
Then you CD to that directory start the build
and discover that it tries to download source
code for Gnome or KDE then build it -- which
will take half a day on some machines....
welcome to the ports system
The FreeBSD maintainers aren't concerned with being trivial to use. They're more concerned with creating a powerful and flexible system.
They focus on this almost to a fault. There's a recent thread on freebsd-questions with the subject "Modern FreeBSD Installer" where a few people are complaining about how unfriendly the current installer is. There's a fairly large base of people who don't want a change to the installer because it's familiar--and once you're familiar with it, you can install the base system in about 5 minutes. But the arcane nature of the installer is such that it turns a lot of new users off from the beginning.
Keep in mind that FreeBSD is an advanced user's OS. While its documentation is really quite good, it isn't going to hold your hand once you're on the shell. Reading through the handbook ( http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports-using.html for specific information on the ports system) before or during use will help you learn a lot about the system.
Why not just dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/yourhardriveblockdevice?
That's fantastic! Thanks for the pointer!
There's a pretty interesting article about this here: http://savoysoftware.com/blog/?p=114
That's great, but the poster was talking about how BT is better because it's built in.
When there's an equally tiny USB dongle for a proprietary wireless mouse, I may take a look at them. But I haven't seen them yet, so I stick with crappy Bluetooth mice.
Oh, the mouse has to work in Linux, too, which is sometimes an issue for the proprietary wireless ones.
Your argument is meritless with regards to iPhones (at least), as there's a little notice in the box that says you must agree to the EULA. I assume that iPods have the same notice, however I don't own one, so I can't say for sure.
I'm not saying that the case has merit--rather, I was pointing out that libel is illegal. The person to whom I responded seemed to think that it isn't.
You don't get to tell me how to use the chair I bought from you, apple don't get the right to tell me how to use the iPod. They don't have to support it, but they have no right to stop me taking it apart, talking to it with other software or shoving it up my arse if that's what I want to do.
Ah, the EULA. It's happy to invalidate all of your little beliefs.
I know it sounds like I'm trolling, but I'm really not. The difference between a chair and an embedded device with software is that the former doesn't (usually) come with an EULA. In the United States, EULA enforceability is still somewhat uncertain, with different courts and states having different opinions on the subject. Nonetheless, they're usually treated as enforceable until a judge says otherwise, if for no other reason than there's not a lot of case law on it, and a full trial will need to be held in most cases to ascertain the enforceability.
And frankly, they're most likely going to eventually be considered enforceable for standard clauses, with absurd clauses being dismissed immediately (rights to your first born, for example) and grey area clauses enforceability being determined by a judge.
Libelous actions are illegal.
Fair enough. I don't order from them that often, but once you said that, I do remember having a harder time getting their site to play nicely with NoScript a while back.
I'll admit that I'm a bad activist. Newegg is so damned convenient and usually one of the cheaper merchants, that I put up with their javascript.
You have to enable newegg.com and the inaptly named neweggimages.com in order to navigate/purchase.
Searching in pages: pleaaze... that has nothing to do with dhtml based pages!
You can search within pages as long as you are document centric and dont have a rich client application running!
I will give an example, most of the stuff mentioned can be done via applying a hash value which represents some kind of application state (hash because it is alterable from the script without causing page refreshes)
I think you're both coming to the discussion with a different set of assumptions. You're absolutely right that for a web application, many of his gripes don't make sense. Realistically, though, many companies use DHTML for content which is static.
http://digg.com/ is a perfect example. Disable Javascript and go to the comments on one of their stories. Now turn on Javascript. There's actual content which is inaccessible unless you have Javascript turned on. Slashdot has a similar system, except it gracefully falls back when Javascript isn't available. However it's still troublesome to bookmark certain things like a specific comment if you're using the Web 2.0 version.
Think that's too close to an application? Try http://www.toyota.com./ The site ostensibly provides information on the company and their product--relatively static content compared to a lot of the Internet--but the site isn't navigable without Javascript. It's barely a Web 2.0 site, yet it's horribly difficult to navigate.
I'm not just complaining about Javascript. Just about any time that Javascript is required for navigation, the site is not going to be screen-reader accessible.
Anyway, the point is that lots of sites unnecessarily use DHTML and make interacting with the site in a conventional way difficult, even if they're serving static content and not providing a web application. I suspect that it's these sites that the grandparent is complaining about.
Though there's a boundary, a low UID does not necessarily indicate age. I would have been about 17 when BHI changed their name to Geocities.
Considering he was replying to a post which referenced it? I'd guess a lot.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1213783&cid=27739377
By the time you can tell that it is/isn't Air Force One, it's probably too late.
Supposedly, there are no implicit bandwidth caps in most business plans, either. But from a reliability standpoint, you're right. You aren't going to get five nines with any DSL provider.
I've been driving for over 20 years without a single accident. Not one. I'm not worried about it. Regardless if I care or not, why should anyone be trying to force me to wear a seat belt? How does it help them?
If someone t-bones you, your car will still have momentum, but you may well have ended up in the passenger's seat. You'll have a hard time hitting the brakes or being able to control your car in any way.
If you are wearing a seatbelt, you'll still be in the driver's seat, and you'll have the capacity to control the vehicle.
There are other reasons that not wearing safety belts can impact society, but they're more questionable. Seat belts measurably reduce the damage your body incurs in a crash, so if you choose not to wear one, you're more likely to be injured, require medical treatment, and take up a slot at the hospital that someone else could have used. The problem with this argument, of course, is that it could be applied to any number of unhealthy activities and severely restrict our freedoms.
Sounds like they're guaranteed to win. The human contestants won't be given the questions at all :(
The justification for copyright is absolutely about the public good. These days, though, people tend to think that copyright is actually about ownership rather than a limited monopoly.
And the Beatles and Elvis are two counterexamples. What percentage of popular artists still sell albums 50 years later?
Of course, even if they do, that doesn't excuse effectively making copyright last forever. But my point was that most don't.