As someone returning to the US after living abroad for 10 years (and loving it), I am amazed how Americans think they have a broad range of choices, when the reality is they don't.
Americans have a broad range of choices over things of little consequence, eg which "restaurant" to get tonight's dinner or which cable channel to numb their mind with.
The truly important options like transportation, civic participation, etc, are routinely scorned.
Oh, and you ended your sentence with a preposition.
...something up with which I will not put! (Attributed to Churchill)
This is a style fossil left over from some style junkie with a chip on their shoulder. There is nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition, just as there is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive.
(Just FYI, nothing to get your knickers in a knot over.)
If you do not distribute the software, then you haven't licensed it! You are not under the GPL, you haven't broken the GPL, and you are perfectly within your rights.
This is valid use of Free software. The authors of the GPL and the authors of GPL'd software recognize that this use of GPL'd software is likely to occur, although they do encourage sharing modifications.
Intellectual property theft happens all the time, almost always inadvertently.
Dubious and absolutely irrelevant. This is copyright we're talking about, not patent. Linux is so obviously GPL that if a company doesn't realize this, it shouldn't be in the industry.
Nothing about software copyright says you can't implement your own solution.
Excellent point. MS is afraid of the browser, any browser, as a platform for delivering services. Were the browser as a platform allowed to become so advanced that applications could run identically on any browser on any OS, then Windows would cease to be necessary for office and home users. Why pay $X for a Windows machine when $1/2X will get a machine that does the same job?
But MS has managed to suspend browser innovation, for the time being, and protect their monopoly.
'Slippery slope' is a single term. It's common for people to use'word' when they mean 'term', so get off your high horse and give it a rest.
Re:Dead? Well, probably not. Mostly.
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 1
If it's UI-based,.NET blows the doors off of Java. The design tools are so much better and the UI objects actually work the way they're supposed to.
If this is true, it will be a first. I've always found MS Windows programming to be a real hit and miss process because the window objects rarely behaved as expected. The documentation was next to useless.
If.NET is great for GUIs, then it's because Java Swing showed the way.
I couldn't agree more. When the framers of the constitution limited government's ability in search and seizure, I doubt very much they meant for private organizations to take up where the government had to leave off.
Bypassing 'due process' by legislating the behaviour to private organizations is an abuse. Violating copyright is wrong, but it pales in comparison to the undermining of 'due process.'
To understand the mindset of those opposed to 'due process', may I suggest "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo. (Off-topic, but Kennith Starr and John Ashcroft need to familiarize themselves with this book.)
I'm wondering if anyone but you is dependent on your income for food and shelter.
I'm guessing no one but you. When you have dependents, that whole 'adapt or die' mentality sort of loses its convenience appeal.
But if I'm wrong and you do have dependents, I'd have to say you're independently wealthy and believe the poor are poor due to their own faults or you're one callous bastard. I'm willing to entertain other alternatives.
What you say is generally true. However, in the SCO Linux issue, I cannot imagine an objective analysis that could conclude that SCO has a reasonable argument. There's just no factual nor legal basis for their claims. However, I want to remain open. Please provide any links to articles written by skilled and experienced members of the industry in which they conclude SCO has a good case, or even just the basis of what could be a good case.
To paraphrase an old saying, "Just because I'm biased doesn't mean they're not wrong."
And by the way, the article is an interview with a partisan player, not a report.
Now, for a different perspective: Do you think the executives do what they do to make people's life miserable? Do they enjoy being evil, creating havoc, putting open source programmers out of job etc? Is that their goal in life?
I'd say everybody is in this life to be happy, and ultimately, they want people around them to be happy too. It's just that many are ignorant about what they do to others.
I don't want to burst your bubble or anything, but there is an awful lot of people out there who's sense of personal worth is enhanced when others lose. It's a painful truth I've had to accept these past few years.
Thanks for the info. You slammed me, but I'm glad you took the time to reply. I had muddled together different issues and you've clarified how I need to think about credit, lenders, and raters.
However, I'm unconvinced by the collection of the mortgage balance example. A mortgage is a mutual agreement where I get to pay for the privilege of using money. I can reasonably expect to pay it off on the terms I agreed to going into the contract.
On the other hand, I never agreed to anything regarding the collection and analysis of data about me. A mistake in the data could lead to a erroneous and defamatory conclusion, going so far as to limit my job prospects! Fixing the data, takes way too much time and way too much money.
I really think the financial instituitions are making plenty of money on interest. I see no need for me to have to opt out of anything. Opted out should be the default state.
Exactly. And the agencies hate being wrong. So if you're innocent, they'll beat you down until they get some dirt on you or get you to make a deal (where you look bad) to get them to stop.
It's more a matter of rewarding effort than of rewarding strength.
Yes, let them eat cake!
Snappy comment aside, I think you're practicing some of that wishful thinking conservatives are so adept at. Eg, "They'd like us if they only understood we're helping them! In fact, all we want is to bring them the democracy and a free market economy so they can share in the prosperity."
The King James Bible was indeed the result of dispute, but it worked in the opposite direction. King James wanted to undermine the authority of the Church's leaders by creating a Bible accessible to the laymen.
To us, the language of the King James is difficult, but in the day, it was common.
If your goal is to work in a shoe factory, then by all means join the anti-globalization rush and raise those trade barriers!
(Nice appeal to the emotions.)
It's more complicated than that. Not all current 'programmers' can become systems analysts even if they all had the requisite talent. Furthermore, I don't want to be in a society where the majority of the people of working age have low-paying, insecure jobs. I'll even put it terms to suit a conservative: Even if I were one of the lucky ones, I wouldn't have sufficient economic security if my society were approaching the tipping point of anarchy. Hell, if doesn't even have to be as big as that. It could be a local breakdown of social order in the vicinity of my neighborhood.
So you see, as a member of the middle class, it's in my selfish, economic interest to ensure that the engineering professions don't get shipped off shore.
What we're seeing is change, which one can either fear or take advantage of. It's your choice.
What we're seeing is some influential, affluent, and short-sighted groups taking advantage of the physical and educational infrastructure of North America without returning the favor.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a clear demonstration of the way the parties likes to spend money.
The Democrats like value for money.
The Republicans like to spend a lot of money on things that don't work well, like invading countries.
As someone returning to the US after living abroad for 10 years (and loving it), I am amazed how Americans think they have a broad range of choices, when the reality is they don't.
Americans have a broad range of choices over things of little consequence, eg which "restaurant" to get tonight's dinner or which cable channel to numb their mind with.
The truly important options like transportation, civic participation, etc, are routinely scorned.
I just love how the first lady likens a good book to an 'unreachable itch'.
What a book! It's pure eczema.
When you say 'speeding', people think 40mph over the limit, not 10.
(Attributed to Churchill)
This is a style fossil left over from some style junkie with a chip on their shoulder. There is nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition, just as there is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive.
(Just FYI, nothing to get your knickers in a knot over.)
If you do not distribute the software, then you haven't licensed it! You are not under the GPL, you haven't broken the GPL, and you are perfectly within your rights.
This is valid use of Free software. The authors of the GPL and the authors of GPL'd software recognize that this use of GPL'd software is likely to occur, although they do encourage sharing modifications.
Dubious and absolutely irrelevant. This is copyright we're talking about, not patent. Linux is so obviously GPL that if a company doesn't realize this, it shouldn't be in the industry.
Nothing about software copyright says you can't implement your own solution.
Excellent point. MS is afraid of the browser, any browser, as a platform for delivering services. Were the browser as a platform allowed to become so advanced that applications could run identically on any browser on any OS, then Windows would cease to be necessary for office and home users. Why pay $X for a Windows machine when $1/2X will get a machine that does the same job?
But MS has managed to suspend browser innovation, for the time being, and protect their monopoly.
Alas, how long till the public gets it?
As the saying goes, when you find yourself in a ditch, stop digging.
Please refrain from posting if you've been smoking crack.
'Slippery slope' is a single term. It's common for people to use'word' when they mean 'term', so get off your high horse and give it a rest.
If this is true, it will be a first. I've always found MS Windows programming to be a real hit and miss process because the window objects rarely behaved as expected. The documentation was next to useless.
If .NET is great for GUIs, then it's because Java Swing showed the way.
I couldn't agree more. When the framers of the constitution limited government's ability in search and seizure, I doubt very much they meant for private organizations to take up where the government had to leave off.
Bypassing 'due process' by legislating the behaviour to private organizations is an abuse. Violating copyright is wrong, but it pales in comparison to the undermining of 'due process.'
To understand the mindset of those opposed to 'due process', may I suggest "Les Miserables" by Victor Hugo. (Off-topic, but Kennith Starr and John Ashcroft need to familiarize themselves with this book.)
I'm wondering if anyone but you is dependent on your income for food and shelter.
I'm guessing no one but you. When you have dependents, that whole 'adapt or die' mentality sort of loses its convenience appeal.
But if I'm wrong and you do have dependents, I'd have to say you're independently wealthy and believe the poor are poor due to their own faults or you're one callous bastard. I'm willing to entertain other alternatives.
Oooops!
You're right. My apologies to the original poster. I misread the post. I get it now.
Excuse me while I help myself to (yet) another piece of humble pie.
What you say is generally true. However, in the SCO Linux issue, I cannot imagine an objective analysis that could conclude that SCO has a reasonable argument. There's just no factual nor legal basis for their claims. However, I want to remain open. Please provide any links to articles written by skilled and experienced members of the industry in which they conclude SCO has a good case, or even just the basis of what could be a good case.
To paraphrase an old saying, "Just because I'm biased doesn't mean they're not wrong."
And by the way, the article is an interview with a partisan player, not a report.
...and your beef is misplaced.
-- OR --
Damn! Troll got me again!
I don't want to burst your bubble or anything, but there is an awful lot of people out there who's sense of personal worth is enhanced when others lose. It's a painful truth I've had to accept these past few years.
I don't understand it either.
Thanks for the info. You slammed me, but I'm glad you took the time to reply. I had muddled together different issues and you've clarified how I need to think about credit, lenders, and raters.
I appreciate your appeal to the middle ground.
However, I'm unconvinced by the collection of the mortgage balance example. A mortgage is a mutual agreement where I get to pay for the privilege of using money. I can reasonably expect to pay it off on the terms I agreed to going into the contract.
On the other hand, I never agreed to anything regarding the collection and analysis of data about me. A mistake in the data could lead to a erroneous and defamatory conclusion, going so far as to limit my job prospects! Fixing the data, takes way too much time and way too much money.
I really think the financial instituitions are making plenty of money on interest. I see no need for me to have to opt out of anything. Opted out should be the default state.
Exactly. And the agencies hate being wrong. So if you're innocent, they'll beat you down until they get some dirt on you or get you to make a deal (where you look bad) to get them to stop.
Yes, let them eat cake!
Snappy comment aside, I think you're practicing some of that wishful thinking conservatives are so adept at. Eg, "They'd like us if they only understood we're helping them! In fact, all we want is to bring them the democracy and a free market economy so they can share in the prosperity."
Yes, the Dems like to govern while the Republs like to rule.
The King James Bible was indeed the result of dispute, but it worked in the opposite direction. King James wanted to undermine the authority of the Church's leaders by creating a Bible accessible to the laymen.
To us, the language of the King James is difficult, but in the day, it was common.
(Nice appeal to the emotions.)
It's more complicated than that. Not all current 'programmers' can become systems analysts even if they all had the requisite talent. Furthermore, I don't want to be in a society where the majority of the people of working age have low-paying, insecure jobs. I'll even put it terms to suit a conservative: Even if I were one of the lucky ones, I wouldn't have sufficient economic security if my society were approaching the tipping point of anarchy. Hell, if doesn't even have to be as big as that. It could be a local breakdown of social order in the vicinity of my neighborhood.
So you see, as a member of the middle class, it's in my selfish, economic interest to ensure that the engineering professions don't get shipped off shore.
What we're seeing is some influential, affluent, and short-sighted groups taking advantage of the physical and educational infrastructure of North America without returning the favor.