Maybe I'm strange, but whenever I saw a hooker getting slapped around by a pimp or a john in Grand Theft Auto 3 (or Vice City), I'd intervene and teach him some manners with a baseball bat. Seriously.
I'd also pull "Lost Highway" style politeness education sessions on drivers who cut me up.
Yeah, but "foo review" searches are getting less and less useful because of sites like DealTime. I was searching for hardware reviews recently, and I got sick of clicking through to sites that said something like:
"Foobar TWF-69: BUY NOW! 0 reviews posted, add your review"
Still, it seems to me that when you distribute your Java application, you *are* giving people everything they need to make the app work with a modified version of the library. They can unpack the jar, replace the version of the library you supplied with some other version, and repack it into a jar again.
Even if they want to change the interface to the library, they can do that by using an API translation layer.
Seems to me that distributing a bunch of class files in a jar is not significantly different from distributing a bunch of.o files and a Makefile in a zip. If the latter is sufficient to allow relinking and satisfy the LGPL, why isn't the former?
Every app is a library? Since when? Sure, you can reverse-engineer a Java application to find out how to call the libraries it includes, but you can do that with any application written in any programming language. So why doesn't the same argument apply to C++ libraries, say?
The GPL has the property that, if you derive a project from code covered by it, your own code must also be covered by it. Most licenses don't have that property.
How many commercial software packages can you think of that I can purchase, incorporate into a product, and then reproduce without the product being covered by the original license?
For example, can I buy Microsoft Word, incorporate it into my content management system, and then sell the resulting application without it being covered by Microsoft's license? I don't think so.
Most commercial software licenses are very clear on the fact that redistribution of derivative products can only be done under their license terms.
Apple's share of U.S. consumer PC unit sales rose to 3.4% in the first quarter, up from 1.9% two years earlier. Its share of dollars spent on consumer PCs rose from 2.3% to 5.2%.
Things are brighter in the U.S. consumer notebook PC segment. Apple's unit market share rose from 0.3% to 6.8% in the two years. And its share of the market based on dollars spent rose from 0.2% to 8%.
This says to me that xServe isn't managing to push the Mac into the business server market, but OS X and nifty hardware have lead to a major jump in consumer sales.
First off, let me say that I'm someone who has purchased music from the iTunes music store, and I bought ten CDs this month. I'm not some w4r3z addict pontificating about what might hypothetically make me pay for content.
OK, that said...
I need to be able to preview tracks. Especially if (as seems likely) they're from bands I've never heard of.
I need the site to work with any browser.
I need the files to be burnable on a normal audio CD. I would like them to be regular audio files unencumbered by DRM.
Ideally I'd like LAME encoded MP3s, using --alt-preset standard or --r3mix depending on how much bandwidth you think you can spare.
I'd like downloadable artwork, yes. I'd print that out or add it to the MP3s for iTunes.
If you're gonna sell whole albums only, I need the price to be lower than the iTunes music store. I wouldn't buy an album from the iTMS because it's no cheaper than CD if you shop around; all my purchases have been single tracks from albums I would never buy the rest of. I reckon about 50 cents per track or $5 per album would work.
I absolutely will not pay for RealAudio or Windows Media content at any price, because they're proprietary write-only formats.
If you read the rest of my comment, you'll see that I deal with that. Yeah, it might work the way you say in theory, but in reality America has an enormous trade imbalance. Money doesn't necessarily pour back in from Japan to other American industries in amounts equalling the amount being siphoned out.
Sure the American buyer may have bought an American car.. but instead of growing the economy by $32,000 he can only contribute $28,000 because he is now less wealthy than his Japanese counterpart.
So with the tariffs in place, the American buyer spends $50,000, all of which goes to US businesses and his fellow Americans.
Without the tariffs, he only spends $32,000 on American businesses, and the other $18,000 goes overseas to the Japanese.
Yeah, he may personally be less wealthy with the tariffs in place, but the US ends up collectively more wealthy.
Like so many political debates, this one comes down to the tradeoff between individual rights and collective rights, individual wealth and collective wealth, and so on.
By letting the most efficient people build the products, it creates wealth for everyone as they can spend less and get more.
That only works as long as a country's balance of payments remains fairly well balanced; i.e. money into the US = money out of the US. The problem is that the US currently has a record trade deficit--that is, Americans are buying lots of foreign products, but people abroad aren't buying American products. So money is steadily flowing out of America to foreign countries. Eventually we start to hit the problem that the population doesn't have the money to pay even the cheaper prices for the goods being made.
In the early stages, this doesn't hurt the big corporations. Many of them are incorporated in foreign countries to avoid tax, and are part of the problem. However, as things get worse, they will start to feel the pain.
Imagine the extreme case, where the US has a 90% trade deficit. Almost everything is made far cheaper overseas, so nearly everyone is unemployed, and there's no tax money to pay unemployment benefit. Sure, everything's cheap, but that doesn't help because nobody has any money to buy stuff.
As we get closer and closer to that extreme case, companies will, in fact, feel forced to move even more jobs overseas, to reduce prices so that the low paid or unemployed American consumer can afford them. The whole thing is hence a feedback loop of a particularly nasty kind. It only stops when Americans become as poor as everyone else and it becomes as cost-effective to make products in America as to make them in China.
Of course, whether this is a good thing or not depends on your perspective. In strictly utilitarian terms, globalization will ultimately do the most good for the greatest number, because it will tend to equalize average wealth in various countries. That's probably not what the average American wants to see happening, though.
So in my view, big and increasing trade deficits are indicative of a poor economy, where more and more wealth is heading overseas.
It would be remiss of me not to point out that my views are not exactly common wisdom. In the topsy-turvy world of economists and politicians, massive deficits are viewed with pride, as a sign that the US economy is growing so much faster than the rest of the world, and hence we're all so rich that we can afford to buy lots of foreign goods.
I'm happy for the reader to decide which scenario fits his reality.
Ah, so Overture are the completely unethical weasels who mix paid search results in with the actual search results you're looking for, with no clear delineation between the two.
Slashdot Mirror
You could replace Exchange servers with Domino servers using iNotes Access for Microsoft Outlook.
Rather than the ~3,000 users per server max of Exchange, you can load up to 100,000 simultaneous users on an iSeries machine running Domino...
Microsoft whore who built a DRM-crippled music store gets bitten by DRM. Ah, such delightful irony.
Maybe I'm strange, but whenever I saw a hooker getting slapped around by a pimp or a john in Grand Theft Auto 3 (or Vice City), I'd intervene and teach him some manners with a baseball bat. Seriously.
I'd also pull "Lost Highway" style politeness education sessions on drivers who cut me up.
It'd just get slapped on software from Microsoft, and then everyone would know it stood for "poor quality"...
Apparently it was SCO CEO Darl McBride's tongue. They transplanted it from Bill Gates' ass.
Since something from 1983 clearly isn't "news", I can only assume that this is considered stuff that matters.
In which case, gods help us all.
Yeah, but "foo review" searches are getting less and less useful because of sites like DealTime. I was searching for hardware reviews recently, and I got sick of clicking through to sites that said something like:
"Foobar TWF-69: BUY NOW! 0 reviews posted, add your review"
Yeah, Sharp really need to get the Zaurus 7-series shipping in the USA, if they want to have any hope of selling any.
I was waiting for a Sharp Zaurus, but it looks like Sony are going to release my next PDA first.
Still, it seems to me that when you distribute your Java application, you *are* giving people everything they need to make the app work with a modified version of the library. They can unpack the jar, replace the version of the library you supplied with some other version, and repack it into a jar again.
.o files and a Makefile in a zip. If the latter is sufficient to allow relinking and satisfy the LGPL, why isn't the former?
Even if they want to change the interface to the library, they can do that by using an API translation layer.
Seems to me that distributing a bunch of class files in a jar is not significantly different from distributing a bunch of
Every app is a library? Since when? Sure, you can reverse-engineer a Java application to find out how to call the libraries it includes, but you can do that with any application written in any programming language. So why doesn't the same argument apply to C++ libraries, say?
How many commercial software packages can you think of that I can purchase, incorporate into a product, and then reproduce without the product being covered by the original license?
For example, can I buy Microsoft Word, incorporate it into my content management system, and then sell the resulting application without it being covered by Microsoft's license? I don't think so.
Most commercial software licenses are very clear on the fact that redistribution of derivative products can only be done under their license terms.
From Investor's Business Daily:
This says to me that xServe isn't managing to push the Mac into the business server market, but OS X and nifty hardware have lead to a major jump in consumer sales.
...he works part time on the MILF Hunter web site, and would she like to pose?
Yeah, definitely rsync. I use it even when transferring files between two Windows machines, because it's faster than SMB.
First off, let me say that I'm someone who has purchased music from the iTunes music store, and I bought ten CDs this month. I'm not some w4r3z addict pontificating about what might hypothetically make me pay for content.
OK, that said...
I need to be able to preview tracks. Especially if (as seems likely) they're from bands I've never heard of.
I need the site to work with any browser.
I need the files to be burnable on a normal audio CD. I would like them to be regular audio files unencumbered by DRM.
Ideally I'd like LAME encoded MP3s, using --alt-preset standard or --r3mix depending on how much bandwidth you think you can spare.
I'd like downloadable artwork, yes. I'd print that out or add it to the MP3s for iTunes.
If you're gonna sell whole albums only, I need the price to be lower than the iTunes music store. I wouldn't buy an album from the iTMS because it's no cheaper than CD if you shop around; all my purchases have been single tracks from albums I would never buy the rest of. I reckon about 50 cents per track or $5 per album would work.
I absolutely will not pay for RealAudio or Windows Media content at any price, because they're proprietary write-only formats.
If you read the rest of my comment, you'll see that I deal with that. Yeah, it might work the way you say in theory, but in reality America has an enormous trade imbalance. Money doesn't necessarily pour back in from Japan to other American industries in amounts equalling the amount being siphoned out.
So with the tariffs in place, the American buyer spends $50,000, all of which goes to US businesses and his fellow Americans.
Without the tariffs, he only spends $32,000 on American businesses, and the other $18,000 goes overseas to the Japanese.
Yeah, he may personally be less wealthy with the tariffs in place, but the US ends up collectively more wealthy.
Like so many political debates, this one comes down to the tradeoff between individual rights and collective rights, individual wealth and collective wealth, and so on.
That only works as long as a country's balance of payments remains fairly well balanced; i.e. money into the US = money out of the US. The problem is that the US currently has a record trade deficit--that is, Americans are buying lots of foreign products, but people abroad aren't buying American products. So money is steadily flowing out of America to foreign countries. Eventually we start to hit the problem that the population doesn't have the money to pay even the cheaper prices for the goods being made.
In the early stages, this doesn't hurt the big corporations. Many of them are incorporated in foreign countries to avoid tax, and are part of the problem. However, as things get worse, they will start to feel the pain.
Imagine the extreme case, where the US has a 90% trade deficit. Almost everything is made far cheaper overseas, so nearly everyone is unemployed, and there's no tax money to pay unemployment benefit. Sure, everything's cheap, but that doesn't help because nobody has any money to buy stuff.
As we get closer and closer to that extreme case, companies will, in fact, feel forced to move even more jobs overseas, to reduce prices so that the low paid or unemployed American consumer can afford them. The whole thing is hence a feedback loop of a particularly nasty kind. It only stops when Americans become as poor as everyone else and it becomes as cost-effective to make products in America as to make them in China.
Of course, whether this is a good thing or not depends on your perspective. In strictly utilitarian terms, globalization will ultimately do the most good for the greatest number, because it will tend to equalize average wealth in various countries. That's probably not what the average American wants to see happening, though.
So in my view, big and increasing trade deficits are indicative of a poor economy, where more and more wealth is heading overseas.
It would be remiss of me not to point out that my views are not exactly common wisdom. In the topsy-turvy world of economists and politicians, massive deficits are viewed with pride, as a sign that the US economy is growing so much faster than the rest of the world, and hence we're all so rich that we can afford to buy lots of foreign goods.
I'm happy for the reader to decide which scenario fits his reality.
So basically, it's still native Windows-only code, but the .NET features make it 15% slower?
Ah, so Overture are the completely unethical weasels who mix paid search results in with the actual search results you're looking for, with no clear delineation between the two.
Well, Google's place at the top is safe then.
I don't know, really. On a similar note, did Sun name Solaris after the fictional crumbling space station above a planet that drove people mad?
NeXT/Apple/gcc does not require static typing.
Uh... and what if I don't want to run an MTA, but just want to use an SMTP server that isn't (say) the shitty broken one provided by Verizon?
If you want a standardized object-oriented C that's easy to learn, it already exists. It's called Objective-C.
I run OS X on mine just fine.
The problem is, my tabsize isn't 8, and it's never going to be. So I'm not going to touch Python.