Keep thinking, and you should come to the conclussion that death penalty is wrong. Put all the arbitrary restrictions and safeguards you want, and you will keep sending innocents to death.
His signal adult achievement was ReiserFS, a file system he named for himself, unusual in the programming world. The system organizes data on Linux, the "open source" operating system. In the same breath, they say naming something after ones own name is unusual, and refer to the OS written by a guy named Linus. Hows that for irony. It's wrong to say "Linux" is an OS. It's understandable, though, it has been going on for more than 15 years.
But then, you say that a guy names Linus wrote some OS. I'll explain again, kids. Linus Torvalds wrote a kernel, a crucial tool for making an OS. The resulting OS is GNU/Linux, and your confusion is the reason why calling the OS "Linux" is wrong, it gives credit to Linus, and the Linux project, for the work of GNU people. People say it doesn't matter, but it does matter, in free software, attribution is all.
Disk access is known to be slower in vmware virtual machines, regardless of whether they use files or partitions, than in the same OS running on the bare hardware, in basically every case. I call shenanigans. Duh. Of course. Everything is known to be slower, most of the time. What I was pointing out was that, in the case of a faster win machine, it is usually due to different drivers. Windows disk I/O is somewhat braindead in _my_ opinion (all that stuff in NTFS and FAT where you can't open an open file, why does it even need to check that!?), and maybe, just maybe, virtualization might improve it as a secondary effect, as a result of another layer of caches, buffers, and queuing.
In my experience windows runs faster on vmware full stop. Whats *that* about? Disk access. It just doesn't work in Windows in a reasonable manner. When virtualized, there is someone helping you with that. For computation, and graphical stuff it is probably slower, but for everyday stuff, it can feel a lot faster, and more responsive.
I'm sorry to point this out to you, when everyone else is doing the same thing, but his point is simply that the software people need to do their jobs does not exist on Linux. It doesn't for web developers, it doesn't for me, it doesn't for anyone I know except for the woman who writes server code on and for Linux. Maybe you know a specific kind of people, or you just stopped looking some years ago. I have worked at a telecom company (big by my countries standards, 2-3k workers, 1 million fixed + 1 million cellphone subscribers). 90 percent of the people there work either via web, or terminals for legacy software. While I was there, my coworkers changed a companywide VB6 program used for work hours registering into a JSF application. Developers use mostly Eclipse, and those who don't fall into that generous 10% I set apart, including some VB6 legacy software, and marketing people who use publishing software, and have lots of old files.
MS Office and OpenOffice are used indistinctly. You get a machine with OpenOffice, and you need to make the case to get MS Office. Publications are made with PDF, so people are ok with OpenOffice, because it works great for them, and MSOffice is not enough for them without Acrobat, and they need to justify the expense of MSOffice + Acrobat.
The application that was very important for them was Outlook, because it lets them share calendars. Now they have an internal web app that works better for that, and is easily accessible everywhere.
I think that maybe most people need exchange to do their jobs, but there are lots of other packages that work much better and are more reliable. So it's not that most people need windows to do their jobs, it's that IT departments haven't had the need to transition yet. With the current move of US economy, you will see some of what I described happening around you.
There is no such thing as a license to listen to the song. Or, did you miss the fact that... oh, I don't know... there isn't a license to listen to the song printed somewhere inside the CD case?
What you bought is a CD. You can play the CD. Anything else you think you should be entitled to... whatever justification you may have... is your own problem.
There's nothing wrong with saying how ridiculous the current system is from a moral standpoint, but please don't confuse the legal issues by talking nonsense.
Alright. But there is an issue. If I had bought the CD, now I would own the CD, period. Anything legal I can do with he CD is OK. Copyright is not about making copies, but about distribution. This is not a problem with copyright, I can rip the CD if I want to, copyright law lets me. The thought of that "license" thing started when the seller starts to tell me what I should, and what I should not do with it. There are two possibilities.
1 - I own the CD, nobody can tell me what to do. End of story. 2 - I own the right to listen to that song. They can tell me what to do, but they can't tell me not to change its format, because that would interfere with my ability to listen to it.
Anyhow, I think I share with the record companies the view that #2 is the transaction actually taking place. Again, I get that idea, because they keep telling me what to do with the CDs I bought.
If I am wrong, then it's much easier. They can't tell me what to do. I get to rip my CDs anyway.
Because the only way artists get compensated is via copies of their work? I don't get it. If you buy a CD from an artist, is he losing money because you transfer them to your Ipod? I thought that by buying the CD you were buying a license to listen to the song, regardless of the media. I don't see why an artist should care how I listen to what I paid for.
And tiny fonts on the phones. I don't get it. I have a Samsung C165. It costed 65 dollars. It makes phone calls, has a phonebook, and BIG fonts. I just asked for "the cheapest prepaid phone available", and got this. The nokia 11xx has been such a phone since the beggining of [GSM] time. Is it that old gizards (I mean older than me, I'm 30!) don't know how to buy a phone anymore?
No, you picked Bush because 98% of the planet wishes it was him, and the other 2% handed him cable cutters. I don't think that has any logic. I live in South America, and I sure wish there was no war against Iran, because I think everybody loses in that scenario. If I wished it was Bush, regardless of whether I like him or not, I would be rooting for war. I don't think 98% of people are rooting for war.
most of my memory leaks are several orders of magnitude larger than these entire demos, and they do far more than memory leaks have ever done for me! My own memory leaks have kept me employed in the past. Much more than demos have ever done for me. (but Second Reality rulz!)
Incorrect. Only the copyright holder has the rights to determine distribution. That is a one for one scarcity. You are equating a physical scarcity to a legal construct. Distribution privileges are not rights, even when they are called "copyright". You can't sell rights. Authors do that all the time. Copyright is a bargain between the public and authors, where authors get a monopoly on distribution in exchange for... distributing their works. It is believed that this encourages authors to publish their works. It's not a right, like the right to live, or the right to free expression. You can't sell those, and they are fundamental rights, not the result of a bargain between the government and you.
In reality, copyrightable works are not finite, so they can't be scarce, and they can't be stolen. For something to be stolen it has to be taken away from you, and there is no way someone could take a published song away from you. Its nature does not allow that.
I see that there are lots of legal constructs that try to create "intellectual property", and incorporate characteristics of property to things that just are not, but they have failed so far.
When you thumb your nose at a person's desires to distribute their work as they see fit, you're simply an asshat saying that "I want it, you want money, screw you, I'm taking it over your desires and not going to pay you because I'm just too friggin' cheap."
There needn't be physical items involved for stealing to be stealing. Just because you say so, it won't make it real. There need to be physical items in order for someone to be able to steal. It's whole "take it away from you" part that doesn't work.
The analogy with the spectrum is flawed. There are physical, measurable reasons why transmitting in the same frequency affects others ability to do the same. Airwaves are indeed a finite spectrum, by human standards. Copyrighted works don't have the same issues. Copying other people works can affect their bussiness model, but not their physical ability to publish and distribute. It's a social issue, even a civil issue, but not a physical one.
Wrong example. Good luck finding a good example that shows that there is a natural basis to the scarcity created by copyright. Hint: there isn't.
Btw, given all the hatred of biased terminology, (Don't call it "Digital Rights Management"!!!!) I see you're not above the tactic when you refer to "imaginary property".
Intellectual property is exactly as imaginary as physical property. Both refer to "rights". Rights are inherently intangible. And contrary to their names, they both have physical ("real") referents. That's not the point. The issue is that actual property does have characteristics that "intellectual property" doesn't. Actual property is limited, while copyright and patents are unlimited. Thus, all the constructs around property can't be applied to them. That is what people who call them "property" try to do. They call it "property" so they can apply the rules of property to them, including creating false scarcity. That is just wrong. They are different things, so they can't have the same name, even if some people try to call them like that.
Perhaps the parent needed sarcasm tags, just for you? Sarcasm is supposed to be funny when interpreted the right way. There is no funny way to understand that comment. Maybe you are just laughing at a joke you didn't understand. It happens.
No, I didn't and don't want polyphonic ringtones. I want loud MIDI-like ringtones that cut through crowd noise, music I'm listening to, and other sounds. Loud MIDI-like ringtones that cut through everything _are_ polyphonic ringtones. The only difference is that monophonic ringtones sound like Casiotone, and polyphonic ringtones just sound nicer, but with the same clarity.
I don't want to hear a catchy chorus of a song for a ringtone, just as I don't want "clever" quotes from popular tv shows for my computer sounds. That would be wav or mp3 ringtones.
"I know that I pretty much stopped dreaming about the time I hit puberty."
That's a shame. The good dreams don't start until puberty;-) Well, I had better dreams of that kind when I was five (thanks to a bigger girl next door interested in sex ed) than I had when I had fifteen. Porn probably killed my imagination at that time. Not that I'm complaining, but I don't think you need puberty to have great dreams.
To use your example, Spore has been in development for like seven years and has undoubtedly cost tens of millions of dollars, mostly in man-hours of work. Do you think a free-source project could get a solid core of designers, coders, and artists to donate their time and money regularly for over half a decade with NO product to show for it, on the hope that one day it might be released and... look good on their resumes? Apricot is a effort to improve free 3d tools. Some people invested money, and some developers will work and get paid, among other things because it _will_ look good in their resumes to have worked here, and probably because they want to, and like the idea.
Just because you might not have other goals that direct retribution it doesn't mean other people don't either.
We've all heard the horror stories about what EA puts its employees through to get games out the door. Do you think an entire project team would put themselves through that voluntarily for NO money, or for what little money a free project could get from ads, donations, and so on? From that, I see you are not a software developer or anything like that. EA does that, because they are incompetent at managing people. Non self-imposed 60 hour weeks produce the same as 40 hour weeks, when you are in front of a computer. In creative positions, even less.
A better work environment, a nice project, and people working for a common goal, could achieve what slave workers couldn't.
I'm having trouble thinking of a significant and good piece of open-source software that I use that wasn't either commercial-then-freed, or free-then-commercially-sponsored. I think this happens because you create a false free-commercial dichotomy. Free software does not cease to be free, because it is commercially sponsored.
Probably your issue is the metrics you use. Maybe the same software you consider "significant and good" is considered "significant and good" by the people who have money to invest in it. But it doesn't say anything about free software not being able to be significant and good. It just says that you probably think "significant and good" free software is the one that is commercially sponsored.
I use significant and good free software that is not commercially sponsored. Blender is sponsored by people. Freemind is sponsored by... I don't know who. Well, when PHP became famous, and for a long time after that, Rasmus, the guy behind it, didn't have any corporate sponsorship, and made some money in conferences and stuff.
Of course, successful software will attract money, but it doesn't mean that commercial sponsorship is key to success, maybe it means the opposite.
About your sig...
-- Instant +5 Insightful: just say "All Americans suck because {insert generalization here}" Let me give it a shot:
All Americans suck because I believe in representative democracy, and think that people should be accountable for the actions of their government. Your government sucks, regarding its effect in the rest of the world, therefore you suck.
(That is just an exercise, not exactly what I would say. For instance, I wouldn't say Americans, because I live in South America, for most of us "Americano" means "a guy born in America, the continent", we say "yanquis" to mean "Americans", much alike what mexicans mean when they say "gringo" )
Because the computer reference has relevance to the Slashdot crowd (I mean, they've actually seen this phenomenon happen with cables) but a woman's hair? How often does a basement dweller get close enough to a woman to notice that her hair is tangled or not? Ten years have passed. We finally moved out of our parents basement. We grew old. People who are young now are no longer the nerds we were back in the day. Add to that the fact that nerds are much more attractive for the ladies right now, and you will see that most of us have seen a girl from up close, and even touched them with their consent.
It was a nice joke, to say that slashdot people were virgins, but sadly that joke died. Learn to live with it. there are a lot of nerds still here, but B.O. and problems with girls does not define us anymore. In my case, for example, you could make fun of GNU evangelism or something like that, maybe.
11 Years no GUI, and no JIT and only partial MATLAB support.
Tell me again why GNU FreeSoftware is a better development model if you don't mind. Free Software is about ethcs, not about development models. That is one of the substantial differences between open source and free software.
About Octave, I used for all my "matlab" work in college, and it works great, with a consistent interface, I don't know why I would need a GUI, when I could use koctave,
The release date is "1/18/08" (USA) or "2008-01-18" (ISO 8601). "1-18-08" doesn't strcmp either. 1-12-08 would be "primero de Diciembre de dos mil ocho", next first of December In portuguese, French, and other european languages, it is so. Maybe ISO is reversed to avoid confusions with international communication, and because the ISO way is easier to order
Slashdot Mirror
Keep thinking, and you should come to the conclussion that death penalty is wrong. Put all the arbitrary restrictions and safeguards you want, and you will keep sending innocents to death.
But then, you say that a guy names Linus wrote some OS.
I'll explain again, kids. Linus Torvalds wrote a kernel, a crucial tool for making an OS.
The resulting OS is GNU/Linux, and your confusion is the reason why calling the OS "Linux" is wrong, it gives credit to Linus, and the Linux project, for the work of GNU people. People say it doesn't matter, but it does matter, in free software, attribution is all.
Of course. Everything is known to be slower, most of the time.
What I was pointing out was that, in the case of a faster win machine, it is usually due to different drivers. Windows disk I/O is somewhat braindead in _my_ opinion (all that stuff in NTFS and FAT where you can't open an open file, why does it even need to check that!?), and maybe, just maybe, virtualization might improve it as a secondary effect, as a result of another layer of caches, buffers, and queuing.
I have worked at a telecom company (big by my countries standards, 2-3k workers, 1 million fixed + 1 million cellphone subscribers).
90 percent of the people there work either via web, or terminals for legacy software.
While I was there, my coworkers changed a companywide VB6 program used for work hours registering into a JSF application.
Developers use mostly Eclipse, and those who don't fall into that generous 10% I set apart, including some VB6 legacy software, and marketing people who use publishing software, and have lots of old files.
MS Office and OpenOffice are used indistinctly. You get a machine with OpenOffice, and you need to make the case to get MS Office.
Publications are made with PDF, so people are ok with OpenOffice, because it works great for them, and MSOffice is not enough for them without Acrobat, and they need to justify the expense of MSOffice + Acrobat.
The application that was very important for them was Outlook, because it lets them share calendars. Now they have an internal web app that works better for that, and is easily accessible everywhere.
I think that maybe most people need exchange to do their jobs, but there are lots of other packages that work much better and are more reliable. So it's not that most people need windows to do their jobs, it's that IT departments haven't had the need to transition yet. With the current move of US economy, you will see some of what I described happening around you.
research has never caused problems for anyone, maybe you should try it sometimes? Well, in Soviet Russia... you get the idea.
There is no such thing as a license to listen to the song. Or, did you miss the fact that ... oh, I don't know ... there isn't a license to listen to the song printed somewhere inside the CD case?
What you bought is a CD. You can play the CD. Anything else you think you should be entitled to ... whatever justification you may have ... is your own problem.
There's nothing wrong with saying how ridiculous the current system is from a moral standpoint, but please don't confuse the legal issues by talking nonsense.
Alright.But there is an issue. If I had bought the CD, now I would own the CD, period.
Anything legal I can do with he CD is OK.
Copyright is not about making copies, but about distribution. This is not a problem with copyright, I can rip the CD if I want to, copyright law lets me.
The thought of that "license" thing started when the seller starts to tell me what I should, and what I should not do with it. There are two possibilities.
1 - I own the CD, nobody can tell me what to do. End of story.
2 - I own the right to listen to that song. They can tell me what to do, but they can't tell me not to change its format, because that would interfere with my ability to listen to it.
Anyhow, I think I share with the record companies the view that #2 is the transaction actually taking place. Again, I get that idea, because they keep telling me what to do with the CDs I bought.
If I am wrong, then it's much easier. They can't tell me what to do. I get to rip my CDs anyway.
If you buy a CD from an artist, is he losing money because you transfer them to your Ipod?
I thought that by buying the CD you were buying a license to listen to the song, regardless of the media. I don't see why an artist should care how I listen to what I paid for.
I have a Samsung C165. It costed 65 dollars. It makes phone calls, has a phonebook, and BIG fonts. I just asked for "the cheapest prepaid phone available", and got this.
The nokia 11xx has been such a phone since the beggining of [GSM] time.
Is it that old gizards (I mean older than me, I'm 30!) don't know how to buy a phone anymore?
I live in South America, and I sure wish there was no war against Iran, because I think everybody loses in that scenario. If I wished it was Bush, regardless of whether I like him or not, I would be rooting for war. I don't think 98% of people are rooting for war.
In reality, copyrightable works are not finite, so they can't be scarce, and they can't be stolen. For something to be stolen it has to be taken away from you, and there is no way someone could take a published song away from you. Its nature does not allow that.
I see that there are lots of legal constructs that try to create "intellectual property", and incorporate characteristics of property to things that just are not, but they have failed so far. When you thumb your nose at a person's desires to distribute their work as they see fit, you're simply an asshat saying that "I want it, you want money, screw you, I'm taking it over your desires and not going to pay you because I'm just too friggin' cheap."
There needn't be physical items involved for stealing to be stealing. Just because you say so, it won't make it real. There need to be physical items in order for someone to be able to steal. It's whole "take it away from you" part that doesn't work.
The analogy with the spectrum is flawed. There are physical, measurable reasons why transmitting in the same frequency affects others ability to do the same.
Airwaves are indeed a finite spectrum, by human standards. Copyrighted works don't have the same issues. Copying other people works can affect their bussiness model, but not their physical ability to publish and distribute. It's a social issue, even a civil issue, but not a physical one.
Wrong example. Good luck finding a good example that shows that there is a natural basis to the scarcity created by copyright. Hint: there isn't.
Intellectual property is exactly as imaginary as physical property. Both refer to "rights". Rights are inherently intangible. And contrary to their names, they both have physical ("real") referents. That's not the point. The issue is that actual property does have characteristics that "intellectual property" doesn't. Actual property is limited, while copyright and patents are unlimited. Thus, all the constructs around property can't be applied to them. That is what people who call them "property" try to do. They call it "property" so they can apply the rules of property to them, including creating false scarcity. That is just wrong. They are different things, so they can't have the same name, even if some people try to call them like that.
Perhaps the parent needed sarcasm tags, just for you? Sarcasm is supposed to be funny when interpreted the right way. There is no funny way to understand that comment. Maybe you are just laughing at a joke you didn't understand. It happens.
That's a shame. The good dreams don't start until puberty
Just because you might not have other goals that direct retribution it doesn't mean other people don't either. We've all heard the horror stories about what EA puts its employees through to get games out the door. Do you think an entire project team would put themselves through that voluntarily for NO money, or for what little money a free project could get from ads, donations, and so on? From that, I see you are not a software developer or anything like that. EA does that, because they are incompetent at managing people. Non self-imposed 60 hour weeks produce the same as 40 hour weeks, when you are in front of a computer. In creative positions, even less.
A better work environment, a nice project, and people working for a common goal, could achieve what slave workers couldn't.
Probably your issue is the metrics you use. Maybe the same software you consider "significant and good" is considered "significant and good" by the people who have money to invest in it. But it doesn't say anything about free software not being able to be significant and good. It just says that you probably think "significant and good" free software is the one that is commercially sponsored.
I use significant and good free software that is not commercially sponsored. Blender is sponsored by people. Freemind is sponsored by
Of course, successful software will attract money, but it doesn't mean that commercial sponsorship is key to success, maybe it means the opposite.
Instant +5 Insightful: just say "All Americans suck because {insert generalization here}" Let me give it a shot:
All Americans suck because I believe in representative democracy, and think that people should be accountable for the actions of their government. Your government sucks, regarding its effect in the rest of the world, therefore you suck.
(That is just an exercise, not exactly what I would say. For instance, I wouldn't say Americans, because I live in South America, for most of us "Americano" means "a guy born in America, the continent", we say "yanquis" to mean "Americans", much alike what mexicans mean when they say "gringo" )
It was a nice joke, to say that slashdot people were virgins, but sadly that joke died. Learn to live with it. there are a lot of nerds still here, but B.O. and problems with girls does not define us anymore. In my case, for example, you could make fun of GNU evangelism or something like that, maybe.
Tell me again why GNU FreeSoftware is a better development model if you don't mind. Free Software is about ethcs, not about development models.
That is one of the substantial differences between open source and free software.
About Octave, I used for all my "matlab" work in college, and it works great, with a consistent interface, I don't know why I would need a GUI, when I could use koctave,
In portuguese, French, and other european languages, it is so.
Maybe ISO is reversed to avoid confusions with international communication, and because the ISO way is easier to order