You talk like there's some fixed segregation between "law abiding" and "criminals". Which is the basic fallacy underlying "with criminalized guns, only criminals carry guns". A corollary to that fallacy is that a law means 100% enforcement, which is impossible with our large borders (for both immigration and gun control).
Security and function are a tradeoff, never black and white. The balance means strong controls on both weapon ownership and borders, to appropriately mitigate what can be neither eliminated nor ignored.
Some people will drive recklessly, drunk, or without knowing how to read signs. Requiring a drivers license of everyone doesn't mean everyone driving has a license, and therefore qualifications, but it does drastically reduce the risks. Which everyone knows about cars, but gun and immigration fetishes, which rely on a false image of "us and them" for suspendable privileges for "them" treated as rights for "us", isn't considered as sensibly.
There are lots of people who can't get guns, but might use them for other than self defense or sports, because of US gun control laws.
These inane immigration laws will also hurt people who are actual risks, but there's no soundness to any of the "logic" offered in either of these comparisons.
BTW, I guess you're opposed to drivers licenses, too.
FWIW, ATCO builds modular structures. Like I said, prefab is enjoying a renaissance, and is increasingly giving the benefits I described: http://www.fabprefab.com/ .
Prefab houses are an increasingly popular method for home construction. They're not really "portable", except when they're delivered from the factory to the "installation site". They're not interesting because of their containers, but because of the economics and other efficiencies in delivering and installing them.
Instead of the house builders building each house as a completely custom job, in an unfamiliar site, in all kinds of weather, with only the tools and materials they bring to some residential area, they've got full control at the factory. They don't have to ship all the excess materials that they used to have to ship back out as garbage. They can keep a pipeline filled with houses they're building, and deliver them very shortly after they're ordered, even quicker than they actually build them. And since so much is standardized, they can mass produce them and otherwise get scale economies that reduce costs. Since they aren't inventing a new, complex device with every home a new, arbitrary blueprint, they are skilled in more than their tools and materials, but rather skilled in producing that exact house, with solved problems presenting higher quality homes quicker.
All that is also true of datacenters. The weather doesn't present so much of a problem avoided, because the datacenter is usually installed in an existing building. But all the rest of the efficiencies are in effect. So datacenters can be cheaper, better, and deployed quicker. This trend makes a lot of sense.
Well, that page was last updated at all 2007-3-22, and I think that note has been there since I saw it in 2003, or at latest 2005. Since KDE 4.0 is a major release, I thought I'd ask whether they were finally implementing according to that plan.
The URL protocol registration is actually a defacto standard residing in the web client, like Firefox or IE. Both of those registries should be part of the OS, so all apps can use them - even if there's no desktop, like on a server.
Do you know if KDE is now using the same standards and implementation of registering URL protocols (like http:) and MIME types (like text/plain =.txt) so any app can hand a URL to the "OS", which then retrieves the data according to the protocol, and opens it according to the MIME type? KDE and GNOME used to use different registries and message passing. If they're unified, then not only does the desktop unify the different apps, but unifies it with the other desktop's apps. Which makes which desktop is chosen more a matter of style than of substance.
Investigate "my" site? What are you talking about?
I'm not a KDE expert - or even a FreeDesktop.org expert. This is an announcement of KDE, so I asked thinking a KDE expert could tell not only me that relevant news, but also the rest of the people reading. Who might not be familiar with FreeDesktop.org and its relevance to KDE, but could learn something about it, even if they don't have the answer I'm looking for.
What do you think Web discussion sites are for? Are you too stupid to understand that you are not the only one reading the page you're staring at?
Definition 5 is a very weak sense. That's how dictionaries work: the lower the number, the weaker and less common the sense, even down to obsolete, abandoned uses.
Which doesn't matter anyway. If you RTFA, you'll see that the antibribery official refused the bribe. Consistency is Not Irony. Expecting an antibribery official to report a bribe is not irony.
No one narrowed CNet's "open source is $free" statement to the GPL until you just did.
And the other (non-GPL) license often offers exactly the same terms as the GPL, including the open source, but explicitly limits the redistribution.
The point is that "free" software has lots of different meanings, some subsets, some complementary but respecting different kinds of transactions (eg. reading the source vs not paying for it). CNet's statement was the grossest oversimplification, which made it wrong.
While I do disagree with that rant, as I posted in reply, I do agree with your point independently. Another important realization most people have about OSS is that even when it's free, they often want to get the kind of support that they have to pay for. And which is often better than the support for closed-source products.
That market education is a slow process, usually self-driven by consumers. Eventually people will want to by the SW equivalent of their cars with hoods never welded shut, but at first the "black box" looks appealing. Until several years living with it breaking down, and depending on only the dealer for service, including changing the oil.
I'm not ramming ideology. It's CNet that explains the ideology wrong by saying "open source = $free". They could just tell people the SW they're pushing is free, without saying something false about the source code. Because, as you say, most people don't care.
Don't rant at me for correcting their mistake. Rant at CNet for mentioning the source code as a benefit for everyone.
FWIW, open source is not really an ideology, but a development technique. That has important benefits to consumers in quality and, yes, cost. Just because Stallman is a whiny hippie doesn't mean the rest of us are. Your rant just makes that image worse by perpetuating it, even when that image is irrelevant to the actual story here: cost and quality benefits of the SW CNet is promoting. No one mentioned ideology, or relied on it, at all, until you started shouting it down like a straw man.
But then you can never demand another bribe, because the briber can switch to mere blackmail. And the blackmailer can demand to keep as much as they want of the bribes they force you to demand from others. A good corrupt official can work that edge, though. I believe that used to be offered as a minor in some Confucian civil service schools.
They didn't say merely "these essential OSS products are all $free". They made a blanket statement about open source = $free. Which is an old debate whose distinctions are well understood within the F/OSS community. But not, evidently, by CNet.
All the apps I develop, with few (expensive) exceptions, come with source code, but not redistribution rights. I'm sure I'm not unique. And there are many dual-use licenses that prohibit any use of the open-source app, including redistribution, for any commercial purpose - or any purpose other than research or trial periods.
And this point is worth reiterating: open-source software is free. No cost. Zero. Zilch. - Nate Lanxon
That point is worthless, or some negative value. Because open-source software is free speech, notfree beer. Plenty of open source is $free, but there's plenty of paid products that include the source code. It's harder to prevent people from redistributing open source, to collect the money from something they can copy to others without paying. But that's copyright violation, which CNet is now promoting, even though it makes its own income from that same protection.
Lanxon is the MP3 and digital music reviewer for CNet. Next time he says anything defending music industry copyrights, or his own on his articles, readers should remind him. Maybe by republishing it under their own name.
No, not all hypocrisy is irony. Irony is when words convey a different meaning contradicting their literal meaning, not when the literal meaning is meant to be conveyed, but merely subverted by actions. The sense of "surprise" (events contradicting expectations) is very weak, and abused in frequently using "irony" to describe it. Which is, I suppose, ironic.
Slashdot Mirror
You talk like there's some fixed segregation between "law abiding" and "criminals". Which is the basic fallacy underlying "with criminalized guns, only criminals carry guns". A corollary to that fallacy is that a law means 100% enforcement, which is impossible with our large borders (for both immigration and gun control).
Security and function are a tradeoff, never black and white. The balance means strong controls on both weapon ownership and borders, to appropriately mitigate what can be neither eliminated nor ignored.
Some people will drive recklessly, drunk, or without knowing how to read signs. Requiring a drivers license of everyone doesn't mean everyone driving has a license, and therefore qualifications, but it does drastically reduce the risks. Which everyone knows about cars, but gun and immigration fetishes, which rely on a false image of "us and them" for suspendable privileges for "them" treated as rights for "us", isn't considered as sensibly.
There are lots of people who can't get guns, but might use them for other than self defense or sports, because of US gun control laws.
These inane immigration laws will also hurt people who are actual risks, but there's no soundness to any of the "logic" offered in either of these comparisons.
BTW, I guess you're opposed to drivers licenses, too.
This message is a paid promotion for "infotainverts", which are what the story is talking about.
FWIW, ATCO builds modular structures. Like I said, prefab is enjoying a renaissance, and is increasingly giving the benefits I described: http://www.fabprefab.com/ .
Prefab houses are an increasingly popular method for home construction. They're not really "portable", except when they're delivered from the factory to the "installation site". They're not interesting because of their containers, but because of the economics and other efficiencies in delivering and installing them.
Instead of the house builders building each house as a completely custom job, in an unfamiliar site, in all kinds of weather, with only the tools and materials they bring to some residential area, they've got full control at the factory. They don't have to ship all the excess materials that they used to have to ship back out as garbage. They can keep a pipeline filled with houses they're building, and deliver them very shortly after they're ordered, even quicker than they actually build them. And since so much is standardized, they can mass produce them and otherwise get scale economies that reduce costs. Since they aren't inventing a new, complex device with every home a new, arbitrary blueprint, they are skilled in more than their tools and materials, but rather skilled in producing that exact house, with solved problems presenting higher quality homes quicker.
All that is also true of datacenters. The weather doesn't present so much of a problem avoided, because the datacenter is usually installed in an existing building. But all the rest of the efficiencies are in effect. So datacenters can be cheaper, better, and deployed quicker. This trend makes a lot of sense.
Cool, that's exactly what I wanted to hear. I've been waiting almost 4 years for that MIMEtype DB compliance. DBus is a major bonus.
Is there a changelog that details that FD.o work?
Well, that page was last updated at all 2007-3-22, and I think that note has been there since I saw it in 2003, or at latest 2005. Since KDE 4.0 is a major release, I thought I'd ask whether they were finally implementing according to that plan.
One of the FD.o specs is "MIME actions".
The URL protocol registration is actually a defacto standard residing in the web client, like Firefox or IE. Both of those registries should be part of the OS, so all apps can use them - even if there's no desktop, like on a server.
Do you know if KDE is now using the same standards and implementation of registering URL protocols (like http:) and MIME types (like text/plain = .txt) so any app can hand a URL to the "OS", which then retrieves the data according to the protocol, and opens it according to the MIME type? KDE and GNOME used to use different registries and message passing. If they're unified, then not only does the desktop unify the different apps, but unifies it with the other desktop's apps. Which makes which desktop is chosen more a matter of style than of substance.
Investigate "my" site? What are you talking about?
I'm not a KDE expert - or even a FreeDesktop.org expert. This is an announcement of KDE, so I asked thinking a KDE expert could tell not only me that relevant news, but also the rest of the people reading. Who might not be familiar with FreeDesktop.org and its relevance to KDE, but could learn something about it, even if they don't have the answer I'm looking for.
What do you think Web discussion sites are for? Are you too stupid to understand that you are not the only one reading the page you're staring at?
Has KDE made any more progress in cross-desktop (eg. with GNOME) compatibility according to the FreeDesktop.org compatibility specs?
Definition 5 is a very weak sense. That's how dictionaries work: the lower the number, the weaker and less common the sense, even down to obsolete, abandoned uses.
Which doesn't matter anyway. If you RTFA, you'll see that the antibribery official refused the bribe. Consistency is Not Irony. Expecting an antibribery official to report a bribe is not irony.
Just go back to what you were doing.
On the other hand, Americans like nothing better than something $free, even if it's illegal - even if they don't really want it.
Anonymous stupid Coward can't even read the definition to which I linked. They have no one but themself to blame for staying so stupid.
No one narrowed CNet's "open source is $free" statement to the GPL until you just did.
And the other (non-GPL) license often offers exactly the same terms as the GPL, including the open source, but explicitly limits the redistribution.
The point is that "free" software has lots of different meanings, some subsets, some complementary but respecting different kinds of transactions (eg. reading the source vs not paying for it). CNet's statement was the grossest oversimplification, which made it wrong.
While I do disagree with that rant, as I posted in reply, I do agree with your point independently. Another important realization most people have about OSS is that even when it's free, they often want to get the kind of support that they have to pay for. And which is often better than the support for closed-source products.
That market education is a slow process, usually self-driven by consumers. Eventually people will want to by the SW equivalent of their cars with hoods never welded shut, but at first the "black box" looks appealing. Until several years living with it breaking down, and depending on only the dealer for service, including changing the oil.
I'm not ramming ideology. It's CNet that explains the ideology wrong by saying "open source = $free". They could just tell people the SW they're pushing is free, without saying something false about the source code. Because, as you say, most people don't care.
Don't rant at me for correcting their mistake. Rant at CNet for mentioning the source code as a benefit for everyone.
FWIW, open source is not really an ideology, but a development technique. That has important benefits to consumers in quality and, yes, cost. Just because Stallman is a whiny hippie doesn't mean the rest of us are. Your rant just makes that image worse by perpetuating it, even when that image is irrelevant to the actual story here: cost and quality benefits of the SW CNet is promoting. No one mentioned ideology, or relied on it, at all, until you started shouting it down like a straw man.
But then you can never demand another bribe, because the briber can switch to mere blackmail. And the blackmailer can demand to keep as much as they want of the bribes they force you to demand from others. A good corrupt official can work that edge, though. I believe that used to be offered as a minor in some Confucian civil service schools.
They didn't say merely "these essential OSS products are all $free". They made a blanket statement about open source = $free. Which is an old debate whose distinctions are well understood within the F/OSS community. But not, evidently, by CNet.
All the apps I develop, with few (expensive) exceptions, come with source code, but not redistribution rights. I'm sure I'm not unique. And there are many dual-use licenses that prohibit any use of the open-source app, including redistribution, for any commercial purpose - or any purpose other than research or trial periods.
That point is worthless, or some negative value. Because open-source software is free speech , notfree beer. Plenty of open source is $free, but there's plenty of paid products that include the source code. It's harder to prevent people from redistributing open source, to collect the money from something they can copy to others without paying. But that's copyright violation, which CNet is now promoting, even though it makes its own income from that same protection.
Lanxon is the MP3 and digital music reviewer for CNet. Next time he says anything defending music industry copyrights, or his own on his articles, readers should remind him. Maybe by republishing it under their own name.
No, not all hypocrisy is irony. Irony is when words convey a different meaning contradicting their literal meaning, not when the literal meaning is meant to be conveyed, but merely subverted by actions. The sense of "surprise" (events contradicting expectations) is very weak, and abused in frequently using "irony" to describe it. Which is, I suppose, ironic.
Paid by Samsung not to monitor.
Anonymous Retard.
That's not "irony". That's evidence that Samsung was also bribing or otherwise corrupting the government that Lee was paid not to monitor.
Even Alanis Morissette knows that bribing a cop to freely rob a house isn't "ironic".