"Newton's laws are simple, definitive, and we're unlike to find anything that contradicts them.
"Yup, we're unlikely to find anything that contradicts them. Like, you know, a century's worth of experimental physics. But ignoring the pesky 20th century, no, you're not going to find anything to contradict them."
Except, of course, that you're wrong. Planesdragon was correct when he said that nothing had contradicted Newton's laws. The people who claim otherwise simply don't understand Newton's Laws.
(1) A body remains at rest or travels with constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force.
True. Nothing in either quantum or relativistic physics contradict this. They do expand upon the what a force actually is, but they in no way contradict it.
(2) The force acting on a body is equal to its rate of change of momentum.
Trivially true. This isn't really a law, so much as a definition - in fact, the definition of a force. As a definition it can't disproven.
(3) Every action has an equal but opposite reaction.
True. Much like the first law, the implications of this are complicated by quantum and relativistic effects, but the law itself remains unchanged.
So, having stood for centuries, they certainly look like they deserve being called laws to me.
So, what you're saying is... that if you wrote software that you intended to charge money for via licensing, you'd be okay with people going ahead and making all the copies they want? (and pass them to their friends, who do the same.) That wouldn't piss you off? What if more people copied it for free than paid you for it?
Well, if the long-term consequence of this rampant copying were that I made more money, then I suspect I'd probably be fine with it, yeah. And looking at the history of Microsoft, that's not exactly an impossible scenario.
The GPL doesn't give you shit. It's not worth the paper it's written on. I'm just waiting for the day someone tries to pursue this legally by suing someone for GPL violation. Any lawyer would laugh at this instead of taking the case. I'm being 100% serious.
Eben Moglen seems to feel differently. And so did the lawyers of the various companies that changed their minds after being told about their GPL violation.
Ahh, okay, now I understand the link to Debian. You must have some pseudo-religious belief that paying for software is inherently wrong. Can you for a moment accept the fact that the millions of dollars and hard work that goes into making a polished software product is worth some monetary value to someone? Just because you don't think so doesn't absolve you from paying for it, nor does it indicate that they are 'extorting' money from anyone else. They're just making a successful living.
Well the computer I'm using at the moment has a lot of Free software on it that I did pay for. I'm sure a lot of other/. readers could say the same. So I think it's safe to say that a belief in Free (Libre) software in no way implies a belief that software should be free (Gratis).
That only proves that not all energy is mass. To say that mass and energy are not the same thing, you still need to prove that not all mass is energy. Otherwise, mass is just a subset of energy.
Well, yeah, OK, the idea behind free software is to share source code. But that just comes from a more general principle that it's good to share information.
Did you think all thse people rambling on about how "information wants to be free," were just looking for to violate the copyrights of music publishers?
OK, now that I think about it, most of them were. Still, the free exchange of information still seems like a pretty good idea (I'm just not sure about the value of the information contained in a Back Street Boys mp3).
I mean, since Mozilla is "free" can they place distribution conditions on it and deny people the ability to distribute it?
Well, no. They can't force people not to distriute Mozilla, but they can ask you nicely not to, since that's not what the binaries are intended for. I suppose the OpenCD people could have told mozilla.org to get lost, but since there are plenty of alternatives, and it's not like they don't have a good reason for the request, why not play nicely?
BTW, have you ever tried to install Win9x, Win2K, or WinXP from scratch?
Yes.
I keep seeing this. "Installing Windows from scratch is so much harder than with Linux." I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. I don't know what obscure hardware you people have been managing to dig up, but my experience is that 9 times out of 10, installing windows from scratch is a pretty trivial operation.
I mean, distros like Mandrake or Suse make it pretty easy to get Linux up and running these days, but even so, Windows is easier.
(Well, I don't know about XP, as I've never gotten any closer to it than a screen shot, but I've certainly tried all the others.)
You can't tell me that their is any linux distro that can match Windows ease of use.
Well, a couple of days ago, I was talking with my girlfriend - who, while definitely not a geek, is reasonably computer literate - and she was complaining about the Windows XP box her father had just bought. She just couldn't figure the damn thing out. And then she added, much to my suprise, that she couldn't understand why people thought that Linux was so hard. She'd never had any problem using it on my computer.
So, yeah, apparently, Mandrake can match Windows ease of use.
(And now I'm going to have to find something else to make me feel superior. Dammit.)
Re:Files in acrobat format are just artwork.
on
Adobe Gets Hit By DMCA
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Whilst outstandingly bored at work once, I actually read the license agreement that came with our font files. Judging by that, Adobe doesn't think it's legal for you to give your fonts to a service bureau.
In fact, copyright and license is all that's stopping a popular enemy of many of the readers of this site from running off with a lot of source code and using it in proprietary products.
Apart from a TCP/IP stack, I haven't seen them run off with much of the vast amount of code released under, say, the BSD license.
As the article mentions - you just CANT go around violating the second law of thermodynamics like they do (i.e. for a gravstar to form it must 'lose' entropy).
Well, my physics is getting rusty too, but I think I might have some idea what's going on here...
The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases in a closed system. But, during the formation of the gravistar (they've realy got to work on that name), a lot of the original star's mass would get blasted off into space. That's a huge arseload of entropy that's gone somewhere else.
At least, it works that way for a neutron star, and I can't see why a gravistar would be any different.
The question is, does it take away enough entropy?
Then they'll just start arguing over memorable IP addresses. The court case for 1.1.1.1 would be even more embarrassing/annoying/homicidal rampage inducing than this crap...
It's nearly one o'clock on a saturday night here (or maybe a sunday morning, depending on your point of view).
The moment I saw this story, I went to send out an email to a bunch of friends. When I hit the send/recieve button, I got a bunh of emails telling me Douglas Adams was dead.
I guess I know what I'll be reading on the train next week...
The definition of Planet is more than a little on the vague side. For example, there's some argument over whether or not Pluto should be called a planet, given that there are several moons in the solar system bigger than Pluto.
Still, roughly, a planet is a body that orbits the sun, and is heavy enough (i.e. has strong enough gravity) to hold a spherical shape.
Possibly a more accurate definition of a planet would be whatever the latest textbook happens to decide is worth listing as a planet.
I've used regedit. and I've gotta say there's a hell of a difference.
Most of the Unix config files are plain text and just shy of plain old english. Even using regedit, the windows registry is a pretty murky and cryptic place to be.
What about Pascal? Much like BASIC, it was originally designed as a teaching language, but it's more structured. I mean, I learned BASIC at about 7 (so it's possible), and only got to pascal when I started University, but the basics of the language (if you'll excuse the pun) are pretty straight-forward.
And it has a lot of similarities to C, so if the kid gets into programming, it's not such a big progression to "grown-up" programming languages.
(Just remember, no-one should have to use FORTRAN for anything. Ever. I had to, and I don't program anymore...)
Okay, I'm definitely not a "Unix Zealot." I'm typing this in microsoft explorer for chrissakes. Having said that, I have to agree that Unix-like systems do have a natural appeal for programmers.
The main reason simply comes down to this: most programmers are the kind of people who just have to know what that funny looking button on the VCR remote does. They're tinkerers. That's usually how they got into programming in the first place (at least in my experience). Unix systems allow a lot of this, because damn near everything's in text files. There's just no end of stuff to play with. Windows, on the other hand, tends to hide everything in the registry.
The main advantages of windows are it's ease of installation/configuration and the availability of software. These are great for the mass market, but really offer a lot less appeal to the kind of person who is into programming. I enjoy fiddling around with a Linux install to get everything just right. If I were still seriously into programming, as the people we're talking about are, the software thing wouldn't bother me. It would just be a good excuse to mess with code.
Which brings me to another reason programmers like Linux and similar system - availability of source code. Just something more to tinker with.
(Of course, Linux doesn't HAVE to be that way. Mandrake has its flaws, but it sure makes life easier...)
This really was a good example of what the guy was complaining about to start with. The "If you can't do it, you're an idiot," attitude.
Lord knows I've been guilty of it myself on occasion, but it doesn't help and it really isn't fair. I mean, I've been messing around with one type of computer or another for knocking on twenty years now, so, yeah, it pretty much all seems easy to me.
But not everyone can say that. Remember that things that seem obvious to those of us who've been using computers forever aren't necessarily as obvious to beginners. The really odd part is the fact that the problems beginners have are never the ones you'd think they'd have...
So be patient with the beginners. If they still don't get it after a few months, then you call them an idiot!
Slashdot Mirror
"Newton's laws are simple, definitive, and we're unlike to find anything that contradicts them.
"Yup, we're unlikely to find anything that contradicts them. Like, you know, a century's worth of experimental physics. But ignoring the pesky 20th century, no, you're not going to find anything to contradict them."
Except, of course, that you're wrong. Planesdragon was correct when he said that nothing had contradicted Newton's laws. The people who claim otherwise simply don't understand Newton's Laws.
(1) A body remains at rest or travels with constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force.
True. Nothing in either quantum or relativistic physics contradict this. They do expand upon the what a force actually is, but they in no way contradict it.
(2) The force acting on a body is equal to its rate of change of momentum.
Trivially true. This isn't really a law, so much as a definition - in fact, the definition of a force. As a definition it can't disproven.
(3) Every action has an equal but opposite reaction.
True. Much like the first law, the implications of this are complicated by quantum and relativistic effects, but the law itself remains unchanged.
So, having stood for centuries, they certainly look like they deserve being called laws to me.
So, what you're saying is... that if you wrote software that you intended to charge money for via licensing, you'd be okay with people going ahead and making all the copies they want? (and pass them to their friends, who do the same.) That wouldn't piss you off? What if more people copied it for free than paid you for it?
Well, if the long-term consequence of this rampant copying were that I made more money, then I suspect I'd probably be fine with it, yeah. And looking at the history of Microsoft, that's not exactly an impossible scenario.
The GPL doesn't give you shit. It's not worth the paper it's written on. I'm just waiting for the day someone tries to pursue this legally by suing someone for GPL violation. Any lawyer would laugh at this instead of taking the case. I'm being 100% serious.
Eben Moglen seems to feel differently. And so did the lawyers of the various companies that changed their minds after being told about their GPL violation.
Ahh, okay, now I understand the link to Debian. You must have some pseudo-religious belief that paying for software is inherently wrong. Can you for a moment accept the fact that the millions of dollars and hard work that goes into making a polished software product is worth some monetary value to someone? Just because you don't think so doesn't absolve you from paying for it, nor does it indicate that they are 'extorting' money from anyone else. They're just making a successful living.
Well the computer I'm using at the moment has a lot of Free software on it that I did pay for. I'm sure a lot of other /. readers could say the same. So I think it's safe to say that a belief in Free (Libre) software in no way implies a belief that software should be free (Gratis).
That only proves that not all energy is mass. To say that mass and energy are not the same thing, you still need to prove that not all mass is energy. Otherwise, mass is just a subset of energy.
Well, yeah, OK, the idea behind free software is to share source code. But that just comes from a more general principle that it's good to share information.
Did you think all thse people rambling on about how "information wants to be free," were just looking for to violate the copyrights of music publishers?
OK, now that I think about it, most of them were. Still, the free exchange of information still seems like a pretty good idea (I'm just not sure about the value of the information contained in a Back Street Boys mp3).
The really sad part is, 156 is hardly a small number of burners. But they still felt the need to make shit up.
These guys need to get a life more than the worst of the /. trolls.
Later, I'll tell you about the woman who thought the Space Theme was a virus. ;)
Now you're just tormenting us.
I mean, since Mozilla is "free" can they place distribution conditions on it and deny people the ability to distribute it?
Well, no. They can't force people not to distriute Mozilla, but they can ask you nicely not to, since that's not what the binaries are intended for. I suppose the OpenCD people could have told mozilla.org to get lost, but since there are plenty of alternatives, and it's not like they don't have a good reason for the request, why not play nicely?
BTW, have you ever tried to install Win9x, Win2K, or WinXP from scratch?
Yes.
I keep seeing this. "Installing Windows from scratch is so much harder than with Linux." I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. I don't know what obscure hardware you people have been managing to dig up, but my experience is that 9 times out of 10, installing windows from scratch is a pretty trivial operation.
I mean, distros like Mandrake or Suse make it pretty easy to get Linux up and running these days, but even so, Windows is easier.
(Well, I don't know about XP, as I've never gotten any closer to it than a screen shot, but I've certainly tried all the others.)
You can't tell me that their is any linux distro that can match Windows ease of use.
Well, a couple of days ago, I was talking with my girlfriend - who, while definitely not a geek, is reasonably computer literate - and she was complaining about the Windows XP box her father had just bought. She just couldn't figure the damn thing out. And then she added, much to my suprise, that she couldn't understand why people thought that Linux was so hard. She'd never had any problem using it on my computer.
So, yeah, apparently, Mandrake can match Windows ease of use.
(And now I'm going to have to find something else to make me feel superior. Dammit.)
Whilst outstandingly bored at work once, I actually read the license agreement that came with our font files. Judging by that, Adobe doesn't think it's legal for you to give your fonts to a service bureau.
Why doesn't slashdot use PNG for images?
Perhaps because even now, not everyone's using a web browser that supports PNGs.
Or possibly it's just part of the conspiracy....
If I have seen further than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants.
-- Isaac Newton
Yeah, Scribus. It's not Quark yet, but for those sorts of project it should do just fine.
Exactly when do you think Sun were selling Indigos and Octanes? 'Cos if that's what you were running, you weren't giving Sun a dime to start with.
In fact, copyright and license is all that's stopping a popular enemy of many of the readers of this site from running off with a lot of source code and using it in proprietary products.
Apart from a TCP/IP stack, I haven't seen them run off with much of the vast amount of code released under, say, the BSD license.
Not all open source software is GPL, after all.
As the article mentions - you just CANT go around violating the second law of thermodynamics like they do (i.e. for a gravstar to form it must 'lose' entropy).
Well, my physics is getting rusty too, but I think I might have some idea what's going on here...
The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases in a closed system. But, during the formation of the gravistar (they've realy got to work on that name), a lot of the original star's mass would get blasted off into space. That's a huge arseload of entropy that's gone somewhere else.
At least, it works that way for a neutron star, and I can't see why a gravistar would be any different.
The question is, does it take away enough entropy?
Hell, no.
Then they'll just start arguing over memorable IP addresses. The court case for 1.1.1.1 would be even more embarrassing/annoying/homicidal rampage inducing than this crap...
It's nearly one o'clock on a saturday night here (or maybe a sunday morning, depending on your point of view).
The moment I saw this story, I went to send out an email to a bunch of friends. When I hit the send/recieve button, I got a bunh of emails telling me Douglas Adams was dead.
I guess I know what I'll be reading on the train next week...
The definition of Planet is more than a little on the vague side. For example, there's some argument over whether or not Pluto should be called a planet, given that there are several moons in the solar system bigger than Pluto.
Still, roughly, a planet is a body that orbits the sun, and is heavy enough (i.e. has strong enough gravity) to hold a spherical shape.
Possibly a more accurate definition of a planet would be whatever the latest textbook happens to decide is worth listing as a planet.
I've used regedit. and I've gotta say there's a hell of a difference.
Most of the Unix config files are plain text and just shy of plain old english. Even using regedit, the windows registry is a pretty murky and cryptic place to be.
(Ah, logo... that brings back memories.)
What about Pascal? Much like BASIC, it was originally designed as a teaching language, but it's more structured. I mean, I learned BASIC at about 7 (so it's possible), and only got to pascal when I started University, but the basics of the language (if you'll excuse the pun) are pretty straight-forward.
And it has a lot of similarities to C, so if the kid gets into programming, it's not such a big progression to "grown-up" programming languages.
(Just remember, no-one should have to use FORTRAN for anything. Ever. I had to, and I don't program anymore...)
Okay, I'm definitely not a "Unix Zealot." I'm typing this in microsoft explorer for chrissakes. Having said that, I have to agree that Unix-like systems do have a natural appeal for programmers.
The main reason simply comes down to this: most programmers are the kind of people who just have to know what that funny looking button on the VCR remote does. They're tinkerers. That's usually how they got into programming in the first place (at least in my experience). Unix systems allow a lot of this, because damn near everything's in text files. There's just no end of stuff to play with. Windows, on the other hand, tends to hide everything in the registry.
The main advantages of windows are it's ease of installation/configuration and the availability of software. These are great for the mass market, but really offer a lot less appeal to the kind of person who is into programming. I enjoy fiddling around with a Linux install to get everything just right. If I were still seriously into programming, as the people we're talking about are, the software thing wouldn't bother me. It would just be a good excuse to mess with code.
Which brings me to another reason programmers like Linux and similar system - availability of source code. Just something more to tinker with.
(Of course, Linux doesn't HAVE to be that way. Mandrake has its flaws, but it sure makes life easier...)
This really was a good example of what the guy was complaining about to start with. The "If you can't do it, you're an idiot," attitude.
Lord knows I've been guilty of it myself on occasion, but it doesn't help and it really isn't fair. I mean, I've been messing around with one type of computer or another for knocking on twenty years now, so, yeah, it pretty much all seems easy to me.
But not everyone can say that. Remember that things that seem obvious to those of us who've been using computers forever aren't necessarily as obvious to beginners. The really odd part is the fact that the problems beginners have are never the ones you'd think they'd have...
So be patient with the beginners. If they still don't get it after a few months, then you call them an idiot!
I'm runnimg 7.1, which also uses ALSA, and I've gotta say it works quite nicely. Only way I seem to get my crappy soundchip to work...