The centralized media is going away. LA Times and NY Times subscriptions are plummeting. Television news broadcasts have dismal ratings. The entire news landscape is changing. People today are getting a lot of their news from talk radio, portals, and blogs.
You idiot. It is not a fisheye lens. It is a rectilinear wide angle.
Blame the article. The article called it a "fisheye lens".
What the fuck is inappropriate about using a wide angle lens?
It distorts the picture. While certainly a dramatic photo, it still distorts the image. News photos should be objective statements of record, not artistic pieces designed to manipulate emotions.
New news in the scientific community, but very old news in the news community. You can never believe any picture you see in the news media. Here's a recent example: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003780.htm . The media (both big and small) have been repeated caught photoshopping their images. One of the great advantages of the blogosphere is that this sort of stuff gets found out very quickly.
As long as there is a market demand for pharmaceutical research, it will continue to be supplied. Without patents it won't be supplied in the same manner, but to suggest the entire industry will dry up and blow away is ludicrous.
You are correct in that the problem is with *all* patents. Unfortunately there are too many people, the FSF included, who feel that only software patents are bad, and other patents are perfectly fine. Conceptually there is no difference between not being allowed to reimplement an algorithm and not being allowed to build a certain type of fuel injection system, toothbrush or door hinge.
The Abramoff scandle is one sided. Period. No debate, no argument. He bribed Republicans. He did not bribe Democrats. (He also committed fraud.)
If you say this calmly and without spittle, then people might take you seriously. But when the Post has to take down comments because they couldn't keep up with the avalanche of screaming hatred, people start to question your credibility.
It's easier to engage in rational conversation when you're not foaming at the mouth.
The is the Democrat Underground you're talking about. They don't care about the truth. They just want to throw excrement at the people claiming there was excrement throwing going on.
The Republican defense is basically "Those bad ol' lobbyists got to all of us members of Congress. If you get rid of us, get rid of them too!" True, but then again, the Democrat charge was "All Republicans are corrupt all the time and no Democrat ever was."
What we'd consider a normal day around here has to look fairly intimidating to the average newspaper editor.
What we'd consider a normal day around here would be considered ultra-conservative to many liberal blogs. I can't say this is wholely the result of the Slashdot moderation system, as it's still quite tame if you browse to -1.
The average comment to a liberal blog is vindictive, venting, foul, hating and cruel. These types of comments sometimes occur on conservative blogs, but only on the left side of the blogosphere considers it a cultural norm. Don't believe me, go read the blogs yourselves.
This is truly sad, because the mainstream liberal viewpoint is being drowned out in the filth and mire of the moonbats.
You were saying that GPL advocates were opposed to copyright
They are. About a quarter to a third of the FSF's Free Software essays are arguments against copyright. It's one of their core beliefs. Copyright is used as a necessary evil to fight copyright. One can make a utilitarian argument for adopting evil copyrights, but one cannot make a moral argument for doing so without being hypocritical.
You've completely missed my point. What I am doing is pointing out the irony in condemning copyright while simultaneously asserting moral rights based on it. If GNU believes that using copyright to combat copyright is a necessary evil, then need to understand that necessary evils are still evil.
There are dozens of variations on this example: "The GPL prevents my work from being taken and exploited." That statement, constantly heard in the halls of GPL advocacy, implies that the software is the moral property of the author, who can morally control its use once it leaves his hands.
Charles Dickens was the first author to make a living as a novelist. Filthy lucre! He should have done as RMS suggests, and gotten a job as a waiter and given his novel away gratis.
From a moral angle, this clause allows programmers to restrict how the fruit of their skills is to be exploited, which is naturally within their right, as long as copyright is recognised in law.
But copyright is not a natural right, so it is not naturally with programmers rights to restrict how the fruits of their skills may be exploited. Legally they have the right to do so, but morally they do not. In the case of GPL advocates, who already morally condemn the concept of copyright, demanding such rights borders on the hypocritical.
The "boatload" of work isn't much. I'm using Qt as my cross platform toolkit. qmake creates a minimal app bundle, which I "homecook" by adding icons, full Plist, resources, etc. It's more complicated than a one-click build, but it ain't rocket science.
I'm assuming that Qt's qmake will eventually support universal binaries. I'm just wondering what to do in the meantime. Xcode is just a frontend, so I need to figure out what it's doing on the backend.
What is wrong with free software being implemented commercially for the customer base? Apple did this with FreeBSD, yet FreeBSD is STILL FREE! I came out with 6.0 just last month. It's doing gangbusters, just as free as it has always been.
X.org was forked off of XFree86, which was in turn forked off of MIT X11R6. It comes from the original MIT licensed code. It's still out there, still being used, and still free.
What you "GPL people" don't seem to realize, is that software doesn't need the special protections that material goods require. Software cannot be stolen. Neither can it be "exploited" in the normal sense of that word. What I do with my copy of the software will not affect your copy of the software.
Yet I see that X.org is still under the MIT license...
You have a strange definition of "failed". The X Window System is an example of the SUCCESS of the MIT license, because it is a full expression of the goals behind the license.
Question from a developer to all you Mac fans out there. Does the Intel Mac systems signal a return to fat binaries? Will developers need two Macs, one PPC and one x86, to develop Mac applications?
I meant "new genres" in terms of something that isn't a high fantasy dungeon crawl. To most D&D players, Cthulhu is just another monster that can be defeated with a sufficiently high experience level.
In the past TSR/WotC used their size and legal clout to force independent adventures and fandom off the internet. If they think I'm going to kiss their butts just because they've given me "permission" to do what was always legal to do (but for their horde of lawyers), they've got another thing coming.
The d20 license is nothing more than an elaborate scheme by WotC/Hasbro to get their logo on other publisher's games.
I always wanted to play Hârn, but D&D turned me off a long time ago.
Don't let D&D stop you, because it has nothing to do with Hârn! You can use the Hârn setting with D&D rules, but most people prefer the HârnMaster rules instead. Check out www.columbiagames.com or www.kelestia.com.
Slashdot Mirror
The centralized media is going away. LA Times and NY Times subscriptions are plummeting. Television news broadcasts have dismal ratings. The entire news landscape is changing. People today are getting a lot of their news from talk radio, portals, and blogs.
You idiot. It is not a fisheye lens. It is a rectilinear wide angle.
Blame the article. The article called it a "fisheye lens".
What the fuck is inappropriate about using a wide angle lens?
It distorts the picture. While certainly a dramatic photo, it still distorts the image. News photos should be objective statements of record, not artistic pieces designed to manipulate emotions.
That "auto-levels" tool was only applied to the eyes.
New news in the scientific community, but very old news in the news community. You can never believe any picture you see in the news media. Here's a recent example: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003780.htm . The media (both big and small) have been repeated caught photoshopping their images. One of the great advantages of the blogosphere is that this sort of stuff gets found out very quickly.
As long as there is a market demand for pharmaceutical research, it will continue to be supplied. Without patents it won't be supplied in the same manner, but to suggest the entire industry will dry up and blow away is ludicrous.
You are correct in that the problem is with *all* patents. Unfortunately there are too many people, the FSF included, who feel that only software patents are bad, and other patents are perfectly fine. Conceptually there is no difference between not being allowed to reimplement an algorithm and not being allowed to build a certain type of fuel injection system, toothbrush or door hinge.
The Abramoff scandle is one sided. Period. No debate, no argument. He bribed Republicans. He did not bribe Democrats. (He also committed fraud.)
If you say this calmly and without spittle, then people might take you seriously. But when the Post has to take down comments because they couldn't keep up with the avalanche of screaming hatred, people start to question your credibility.
It's easier to engage in rational conversation when you're not foaming at the mouth.
The is the Democrat Underground you're talking about. They don't care about the truth. They just want to throw excrement at the people claiming there was excrement throwing going on.
The Republican defense is basically "Those bad ol' lobbyists got to all of us members of Congress. If you get rid of us, get rid of them too!"
True, but then again, the Democrat charge was "All Republicans are corrupt all the time and no Democrat ever was."
What we'd consider a normal day around here has to look fairly intimidating to the average newspaper editor.
What we'd consider a normal day around here would be considered ultra-conservative to many liberal blogs. I can't say this is wholely the result of the Slashdot moderation system, as it's still quite tame if you browse to -1.
The average comment to a liberal blog is vindictive, venting, foul, hating and cruel. These types of comments sometimes occur on conservative blogs, but only on the left side of the blogosphere considers it a cultural norm. Don't believe me, go read the blogs yourselves.
This is truly sad, because the mainstream liberal viewpoint is being drowned out in the filth and mire of the moonbats.
You were saying that GPL advocates were opposed to copyright
They are. About a quarter to a third of the FSF's Free Software essays are arguments against copyright. It's one of their core beliefs. Copyright is used as a necessary evil to fight copyright. One can make a utilitarian argument for adopting evil copyrights, but one cannot make a moral argument for doing so without being hypocritical.
You've completely missed my point. What I am doing is pointing out the irony in condemning copyright while simultaneously asserting moral rights based on it. If GNU believes that using copyright to combat copyright is a necessary evil, then need to understand that necessary evils are still evil.
I think that you will find that they don't.
But they do!
There are dozens of variations on this example: "The GPL prevents my work from being taken and exploited." That statement, constantly heard in the halls of GPL advocacy, implies that the software is the moral property of the author, who can morally control its use once it leaves his hands.
Charles Dickens was the first author to make a living as a novelist. Filthy lucre! He should have done as RMS suggests, and gotten a job as a waiter and given his novel away gratis.
From a moral angle, this clause allows programmers to restrict how the fruit of their skills is to be exploited, which is naturally within their right, as long as copyright is recognised in law.
But copyright is not a natural right, so it is not naturally with programmers rights to restrict how the fruits of their skills may be exploited. Legally they have the right to do so, but morally they do not. In the case of GPL advocates, who already morally condemn the concept of copyright, demanding such rights borders on the hypocritical.
The "boatload" of work isn't much. I'm using Qt as my cross platform toolkit. qmake creates a minimal app bundle, which I "homecook" by adding icons, full Plist, resources, etc. It's more complicated than a one-click build, but it ain't rocket science.
I'm assuming that Qt's qmake will eventually support universal binaries. I'm just wondering what to do in the meantime. Xcode is just a frontend, so I need to figure out what it's doing on the backend.
So you're required to use XCode to get a fat binary?
What is wrong with free software being implemented commercially for the customer base? Apple did this with FreeBSD, yet FreeBSD is STILL FREE! I came out with 6.0 just last month. It's doing gangbusters, just as free as it has always been.
X.org was forked off of XFree86, which was in turn forked off of MIT X11R6. It comes from the original MIT licensed code. It's still out there, still being used, and still free.
What you "GPL people" don't seem to realize, is that software doesn't need the special protections that material goods require. Software cannot be stolen. Neither can it be "exploited" in the normal sense of that word. What I do with my copy of the software will not affect your copy of the software.
Yet I see that X.org is still under the MIT license...
You have a strange definition of "failed". The X Window System is an example of the SUCCESS of the MIT license, because it is a full expression of the goals behind the license.
That's perfectly fine. But irrelevant to the discussion. Your code under the GPL will always be free, and so will my code under an MIT license.
Question from a developer to all you Mac fans out there. Does the Intel Mac systems signal a return to fat binaries? Will developers need two Macs, one PPC and one x86, to develop Mac applications?
I meant "new genres" in terms of something that isn't a high fantasy dungeon crawl. To most D&D players, Cthulhu is just another monster that can be defeated with a sufficiently high experience level.
In the past TSR/WotC used their size and legal clout to force independent adventures and fandom off the internet. If they think I'm going to kiss their butts just because they've given me "permission" to do what was always legal to do (but for their horde of lawyers), they've got another thing coming.
The d20 license is nothing more than an elaborate scheme by WotC/Hasbro to get their logo on other publisher's games.
I always wanted to play Hârn, but D&D turned me off a long time ago.
Don't let D&D stop you, because it has nothing to do with Hârn! You can use the Hârn setting with D&D rules, but most people prefer the HârnMaster rules instead. Check out www.columbiagames.com or www.kelestia.com.
No, this draft doesn't limit use in any way. The restrictions are when you want to distribute copies or use the software in derivative works.
Is it just me, or does anyone see the huge gaping irony in that statement?