Speeding violations generate lots of ticket revenues in the name of safety despite most accidents not being caused by speeding and that's because of people like this.
Whenever the police minister pulls out the 'the fact is speed cameras save lives', it really begs for the [citation needed] because it sounds like absolute bullshit to me.
I wouldn't think this would hold much value anymore, i mean anyone who wants say an iphone can get one. Here in australia they are dirt cheap, you get them for free on a $59 cap, they are accessible to anyone. In my household we have 1x3G, 2x3GSs and 1x4, the only one actually being used is the iphone4 and it's not worth getting rid of the others since they are so cheap to get brand new from the carrier anyway.
But "Full HD"?? Time for a class action lawsuit, is what I say.
Being able to decode 'Full HD' is exactly what they are saying, claiming that it can play it isn't marketing BS at all. Are they saying it has a 'Full HD' display? I don't think so. I know that my XBox and PS3 can decode and play 'Full HD', of course i need to connect them to a 'Full HD' capable display to view it, much like with the galaxy tablet.
What retard is WRITING these headlines? Some doucher from some independent organisation comes out with the idea that pedestrians should be penalised for ipod use and somehow this is representative of Australia and/or the Australian government?
It's a strange thing. It seems the only reason IE exists it to repeated punch microsofts reputation in the face.
I question why they bother with a browser at all. What do they really gain from it? Wouldn't the money they spend on IE be better spent on the core OS?
Sorry, but US demands EU and a lot of other countries to give them access to their peoples banking, financial and all kind of other data, and don't get me even started on the NSA listening devices and backdoors on major ISP's backbones. Why is it so weird when other countries in turn demand the same kind of access? If US wants to promote privacy of citizens, at least start doing it yourself first.
Based on most reports, its doesn't sound like Flash is watchable on Android.
wtf? Do you even know what Flash is? You don't 'watch Flash', that statement makes no sense. If someone is having a bad experience viewing particular Flash content on a device then that is almost entirely dependent on the content so if they don't explicitly state what content was causing the bad user experience - or bin the entire runtime based on a minority of bad-performing content - then they're probably full of shit. It's very easy to write bad-performing HTML5 too.
But it may let me order food ahead of time for pickup, check inventory & prices at store X etc. which is most of what I need.
And i've seen a myriad of posts from apple fanbois along the lines of 'well if they use flash on their website they wouldn't get my business anyway', as if it's a moral thing.
You'd figure on a tech site like/., folks would have a little idea of the amount of volts and amps a lightning bolt carries.
The knowledge of a half-dozen people who posted is hardly a reflection of the wider community. And obviously some folks on slashdot - for example, you - do have a little idea of the amount of volts and amps a lightning bolt carries.
They only cite documents going back to 1998. There has to be prior examples of this happening is there?
Also, software pattents are getting ridiculous now a days. What is next, are they going to patent moving a cursor on-screen to select the option to shutdown?
It's getting to the point where any company will patent whatever the hell they can just to protect themselves from potential patent trolls.
There's a standard/. quote system, it's pretty basic, learn to use it.
You are aware that word context is also GEOGRAPHIC ? I am not from the USA - perhaps it was in use there, but it most certainly wasn't in use in my country - and I have never found a written reference to the term dating back any earlier than 1998 (and I read a LOT).
You are incredibly ignorant, don't presume to know anything about me. Im not an American. If you really do read a lot you would find an incredible amount of references to 'open source' that don't fall into the category the OSI defines, this is not only in the software community but the media covering software.
We're actually going to let capitalization be a nice excuse to get around the requirements ? You do KNOW that capitalization cannot be pronounced right ?
What requirements? The ones imposed by the OSI? Use it in the context of the OSI if you want, but they don't dictate the meaning.
I am not new to the industry - I have been working in software for nearly 2 decades and with GNU/Linux in particular since 1993. What I am not, is an American. But that still changes nothing. Words change meaning - it's been 12 YEARS since the word as we use it was coined and it's become the established meaning -get over it.
I find that hard to believe, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. And wtf are you talking about being American for??? Are you really that small-minded?
Again - if the only difference is capitalization then I put it to you that the difference does not exist.
Im using that to differentiate between 'open source' and 'open source as defined by the OSI', though i thought that was obvious.
Defined by you as "only people who have developed for more than 20 years" ? If you go by "the widest understood meaning of the phrase among developers today" then I win.
No, how bout that new PS3 jailbreak, or the myriad of other code referred to as 'open source' that isn't licensed under an OSI approved license? You LOSE!
There are licenses that are free software approved but not OSI approved but also there are (far more) licenses that are OSI approved that do not (and never will) have FSF approval.
Long before 1998 the term open source was used and it was used in reference to software that met the general open source development model as well as FSF-defined 'Free Software'. So all 'Free Software' was open source, but not all open source software was 'Free Software', if you have been in the community before 1998 you would know this.
I dispute your claim that open source was regularly or typically used within the software development sphere prior to 1998.
Quite clearly you weren't around back then, otherwise you would know that it is idiotic to dispute it.
I have NO doubt in my mind that we can safely demand the phrase open source today must only be used for software licensed under OSI approved licenses because that usage is now so well established that any time you use the phrase for something that doesn't meet those criteria you ARE trying to mislead.
Hence the reason there is 'open source' and 'Open Source'.
The word in context have come to mean for the vast majority of people in the industry "as defined by the OSI". Any other use IS now deceitful.
Bullshit, just because you're new to the industry and don't know any better doesn't mean you can claim use of the OSI term outside of the OSI context is deceitful, as you said 'context is everything'.
Now it's not fraud to use a term in a press-release to describe something that does not meet the definition most of your audience will expect it to have - but it IS deceitful and it definitely IS false advertising.
Again, that's why we have 'open source' being the traditional meaning outside of the OSI's trademarked, licensing-burdened term. So no, it is not false advertising, it would be false advertising to use 'Open Source' in the OSI context.
Context is everything.
Yes! In the OSI context you take the OSI definition, NOT in the broader software development community.
Didn't they do that because they were dropping the whole idea of building dynamic languages on the CLR?
Because they were, yes. So they handed it off to the community.
Releasing the project under a permissive license means they can let IronPython and IronRuby gradually fade away without taking responsibility for killing them off.
Why would they fade away? Not everything that gets released as open source dies.
But sadly, there is no point in debating with you at all because you haven't read a single thing I wrote... I already addressed and debunked all the points you made about the term open source - and showed you the reasons why your "common sense" approach here is just not TRUE. I have no desire to do it all over again.
Actually i read and understood everything you wrote. What you don't seem to understand is that 'open source' - in the software world - existed long before the OSI came up with it's trademarked definition only some 12 years ago. So now we have a capitalised, trademarked, attempt at a 'term-of-art' version of it developed by this organisation that doesn't necessarily reflect the original loose definition of the term, which originally did not have anything to do with licensing and was little more than a development methodology.
In the context of anything done by the OSI 'Open Source' means exactly what their definition says, including the licensing terms and restrictions that preclude use of the term under certain licenses that are considered Free Software, so whilst the OSI bases itself on essentially the same principles as the FSF their definition of 'Open Source' means what is 'Open Source' is not necessarily 'Free Software' or vice-versa. I would find it hard to understand how someone could argue that FSF-defined 'Free Software' would not be viewed as open source by the wider software community.
Personally, I find that as a company, they are overburdened in a faulted development and managerial model that wont fare well in the current market environment.
Absolutely! This seems to be their biggest problem these days, i certainly agree with most of what you said regarding their support of policies that drive profits. I don't particularly like MS, or Apple even, but they do provide products that work for most people.
Slashdot Mirror
They almost made XP too good, the push to upgrade from XP stumbled out of the starting gate a bit.
why is the ipad lagging so much when it comes to ios updates?
or better yet an "internet license" associated with someone's passport or other unique government ID
What use would that be? They can never verify that the person using the license is actually the license-holder.
...their 140 characters of fame.
Speeding violations generate lots of ticket revenues in the name of safety despite most accidents not being caused by speeding and that's because of people like this.
Whenever the police minister pulls out the 'the fact is speed cameras save lives', it really begs for the [citation needed] because it sounds like absolute bullshit to me.
the Apple name and fad-status
I wouldn't think this would hold much value anymore, i mean anyone who wants say an iphone can get one. Here in australia they are dirt cheap, you get them for free on a $59 cap, they are accessible to anyone. In my household we have 1x3G, 2x3GSs and 1x4, the only one actually being used is the iphone4 and it's not worth getting rid of the others since they are so cheap to get brand new from the carrier anyway.
But "Full HD"?? Time for a class action lawsuit, is what I say.
Being able to decode 'Full HD' is exactly what they are saying, claiming that it can play it isn't marketing BS at all. Are they saying it has a 'Full HD' display? I don't think so. I know that my XBox and PS3 can decode and play 'Full HD', of course i need to connect them to a 'Full HD' capable display to view it, much like with the galaxy tablet.
Thanks Captain Obvious, and yes there was a HDMI dock announced.
They should legislate appropriate penalties for people acting so carelessly towards their own welfare
Everything that's wrong about nanny state in one sentence.
Why do some people feel the need to interfere with natural selection?
Who is RUNNING Australia?
I mean seriously, this is STUPID
What retard is WRITING these headlines? Some doucher from some independent organisation comes out with the idea that pedestrians should be penalised for ipod use and somehow this is representative of Australia and/or the Australian government?
It's a strange thing. It seems the only reason IE exists it to repeated punch microsofts reputation in the face.
I question why they bother with a browser at all. What do they really gain from it? Wouldn't the money they spend on IE be better spent on the core OS?
and suspicion is on Blackberries as the communication method.
I guess that's that then, better ban them. douchebag
Sorry, but US demands EU and a lot of other countries to give them access to their peoples banking, financial and all kind of other data, and don't get me even started on the NSA listening devices and backdoors on major ISP's backbones. Why is it so weird when other countries in turn demand the same kind of access? If US wants to promote privacy of citizens, at least start doing it yourself first.
wtf has this got to do with the US?
Based on most reports, its doesn't sound like Flash is watchable on Android.
wtf? Do you even know what Flash is? You don't 'watch Flash', that statement makes no sense. If someone is having a bad experience viewing particular Flash content on a device then that is almost entirely dependent on the content so if they don't explicitly state what content was causing the bad user experience - or bin the entire runtime based on a minority of bad-performing content - then they're probably full of shit. It's very easy to write bad-performing HTML5 too.
But it may let me order food ahead of time for pickup, check inventory & prices at store X etc. which is most of what I need.
And i've seen a myriad of posts from apple fanbois along the lines of 'well if they use flash on their website they wouldn't get my business anyway', as if it's a moral thing.
You'd figure on a tech site like /., folks would have a little idea of the amount of volts and amps a lightning bolt carries.
The knowledge of a half-dozen people who posted is hardly a reflection of the wider community. And obviously some folks on slashdot - for example, you - do have a little idea of the amount of volts and amps a lightning bolt carries.
They only cite documents going back to 1998. There has to be prior examples of this happening is there? Also, software pattents are getting ridiculous now a days. What is next, are they going to patent moving a cursor on-screen to select the option to shutdown?
It's getting to the point where any company will patent whatever the hell they can just to protect themselves from potential patent trolls.
Next will be government mandated backdoors into SSH and SSL... you know, to stop the terrorists.
No, that will happen when SSH and SSL traffic is keeping them from getting oil ;)
Im sorry you weren't able to understand the satirical point regarding anecdotal evidence. Better luck next time.
You are aware that word context is also GEOGRAPHIC ? I am not from the USA - perhaps it was in use there, but it most certainly wasn't in use in my country - and I have never found a written reference to the term dating back any earlier than 1998 (and I read a LOT).
You are incredibly ignorant, don't presume to know anything about me. Im not an American. If you really do read a lot you would find an incredible amount of references to 'open source' that don't fall into the category the OSI defines, this is not only in the software community but the media covering software.
We're actually going to let capitalization be a nice excuse to get around the requirements ? You do KNOW that capitalization cannot be pronounced right ?
What requirements? The ones imposed by the OSI? Use it in the context of the OSI if you want, but they don't dictate the meaning.
I am not new to the industry - I have been working in software for nearly 2 decades and with GNU/Linux in particular since 1993. What I am not, is an American. But that still changes nothing. Words change meaning - it's been 12 YEARS since the word as we use it was coined and it's become the established meaning -get over it.
I find that hard to believe, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. And wtf are you talking about being American for??? Are you really that small-minded?
Again - if the only difference is capitalization then I put it to you that the difference does not exist.
Im using that to differentiate between 'open source' and 'open source as defined by the OSI', though i thought that was obvious.
Defined by you as "only people who have developed for more than 20 years" ? If you go by "the widest understood meaning of the phrase among developers today" then I win.
No, how bout that new PS3 jailbreak, or the myriad of other code referred to as 'open source' that isn't licensed under an OSI approved license? You LOSE!
There are licenses that are free software approved but not OSI approved but also there are (far more) licenses that are OSI approved that do not (and never will) have FSF approval.
Long before 1998 the term open source was used and it was used in reference to software that met the general open source development model as well as FSF-defined 'Free Software'. So all 'Free Software' was open source, but not all open source software was 'Free Software', if you have been in the community before 1998 you would know this.
I dispute your claim that open source was regularly or typically used within the software development sphere prior to 1998.
Quite clearly you weren't around back then, otherwise you would know that it is idiotic to dispute it.
I have NO doubt in my mind that we can safely demand the phrase open source today must only be used for software licensed under OSI approved licenses because that usage is now so well established that any time you use the phrase for something that doesn't meet those criteria you ARE trying to mislead.
Hence the reason there is 'open source' and 'Open Source'.
The word in context have come to mean for the vast majority of people in the industry "as defined by the OSI". Any other use IS now deceitful.
Bullshit, just because you're new to the industry and don't know any better doesn't mean you can claim use of the OSI term outside of the OSI context is deceitful, as you said 'context is everything'.
Now it's not fraud to use a term in a press-release to describe something that does not meet the definition most of your audience will expect it to have - but it IS deceitful and it definitely IS false advertising.
Again, that's why we have 'open source' being the traditional meaning outside of the OSI's trademarked, licensing-burdened term. So no, it is not false advertising, it would be false advertising to use 'Open Source' in the OSI context.
Context is everything.
Yes! In the OSI context you take the OSI definition, NOT in the broader software development community.
there is no point in debating with you at all
Wow, that lasted.
Didn't they do that because they were dropping the whole idea of building dynamic languages on the CLR?
Because they were, yes. So they handed it off to the community.
Releasing the project under a permissive license means they can let IronPython and IronRuby gradually fade away without taking responsibility for killing them off.
Why would they fade away? Not everything that gets released as open source dies.
But sadly, there is no point in debating with you at all because you haven't read a single thing I wrote... I already addressed and debunked all the points you made about the term open source - and showed you the reasons why your "common sense" approach here is just not TRUE. I have no desire to do it all over again.
Actually i read and understood everything you wrote. What you don't seem to understand is that 'open source' - in the software world - existed long before the OSI came up with it's trademarked definition only some 12 years ago. So now we have a capitalised, trademarked, attempt at a 'term-of-art' version of it developed by this organisation that doesn't necessarily reflect the original loose definition of the term, which originally did not have anything to do with licensing and was little more than a development methodology.
In the context of anything done by the OSI 'Open Source' means exactly what their definition says, including the licensing terms and restrictions that preclude use of the term under certain licenses that are considered Free Software, so whilst the OSI bases itself on essentially the same principles as the FSF their definition of 'Open Source' means what is 'Open Source' is not necessarily 'Free Software' or vice-versa. I would find it hard to understand how someone could argue that FSF-defined 'Free Software' would not be viewed as open source by the wider software community.
Personally, I find that as a company, they are overburdened in a faulted development and managerial model that wont fare well in the current market environment.
Absolutely! This seems to be their biggest problem these days, i certainly agree with most of what you said regarding their support of policies that drive profits. I don't particularly like MS, or Apple even, but they do provide products that work for most people.
Microsoft has the smell of death about it.
Really? Windows 7 seems to be doing very well.
This is a very important situation to quietly think to yourself "Caveat Emptor" about
Why do people use that term? No-one speaks latin, and in fact it's one letter shorter to write "buyer beware".
Not to mention the release of the .Net DLR under an Apache license.