This particular breathalyzer has been proven to be the unreliable POS that it apparently is.
Please indicate where it is proven to be unreliable. What I see in the report is a lot of criticism of the design and implementation of the code. I see the design of the code would not be acceptable to the U.S. military or the U.S. government and that it would not pass an unnamed standard. I see many "should"s and "can"s and "might"s.
What I don't see is anything that proves the device itself is unreliable.
Did they test the code, and if so what were the results of the test? Were they able to show the device does not work accurately and reliably? I see nothing of that in the report.
What you did is point out a major deficiency in Firefox and the rest of FLOSS. I commented on it. It is a serious flaw that many people prefer to overlook.
Bullshit. That is just a bad excuse for poor programming.
Let me introduce you to the concept of the "Advanced Configuration" option. See, you would have a configuration panel that has all the common, basic settings and then a button, or even a tab, that opens up a panel with the advanced configuration options currently available only through "about:config" and it would be easy to find for budding geeks. As an added bonus, there could be tool tips about each setting and a help button that actually gives decent help on what they do and what are good settings.
I see you completely missed the point so I am going to make it real easy for you.
Aunt Sally, who knows little about computers and just wants them to work, downloads FireFox on your say so. How is she supposed to know about "about:config" or about a third party website?
Cousin Joe, who is an aspiring power user, wants to understand configuration settings for FireFox after downloading it. How is he supposed to know about "about:config" and it's settings?
Where is the documentation that lets even advanced users know of the existence of "about:config" and what it's many uses are? Is this information that is automagically implanted in people's brains when they download FireFox?
And why should any of that be necessary? Why not just be able to access it from the menu bar? Where is the documentation on the "about:config" page and all it's options?
Get a Creative Commons license, and append some basic text requiring those who re-use your work to pay you a percentage of their gross income.
So, his solution is to allow others to redistribute one's work as long as the one redistributing the work make no money on the redistribution. This would effectively limit one's market, especially in a digital market, to one person who could then freely give it away to everyone, destroying one's ability to make money on the product.
One could set up two independent companies/organizations, one of which is a non-profit which distributes works under this license, and the other a shell company which makes revenue on ads and exists solely to direct people to the works provided by the first company. This would get around the "gross income" provision by moving most of the income to a company that is not bound by the license.
Interestingly, if one did the books right, one could buy a single copy of a book, convert the book to an electronic or book format, then print new copies of the book and sell them for the cost of printing and shipping. If one were to set up a company to do the printing and shipping, one could easily make money selling other people's work.
Doctorow is either being disingenuous, or he is an idiot, or both.
"Ever recorded music from a friend or for your car or for an amateur production? You're a pirate." Recorded from a friend, one is probably a pirate. One making a recording solely for use in one's car, one is not a pirate per 17 U.S.C. 107.
"or an amateur production? You're a pirate."Per 17 U.S.C. 110, it depends on the nature of the "amateur production".
"Ever lent a TV recording to a friend? You're a pirate." Per 17 U.S.C. 109, as the TV recording is a lawfully made copy and it is being returned. one is not a pirate.
"Ever shown a DVD to a party?" Per 17 U.S.C. 107, 109, and 110, this would not make one a pirate because it is a non-commercial event.
"Ever saved web pages? You're a pirate." Per 17 U.S.C. 107, and 117 this would not make one a pirate.
"Ever photocopied a textbook? You're a pirate." Photocopying a whole textbook would make one a pirate. Photocopying a few pages would not, under 17 U.S.C. 107.
There you go, shithead. A point by point refutation of your claims showing exactly how you lied. Or would you prefer to claim ignorance instead of malice?
If by "a metric other than what you like more" you mean "reviews and usage by the general public and most professionals", why then yes, dumbass, that is exactly it.
So, you can go out and buy a package that contains a razor and blades for the same amount one would pay for the same number of blades? Oh, wait, no you can't.
It is a right, legally given, just like the right to vote, the right not to be subject to unreasonable search and seizure, or the right not to be a slave, all of which are provided by law.
Well, asshole, the big fucking hole in your argument is that The Grateful Dead, many other "jam bands" got to choose to freely give away some of their material. The other artists, such as Ms. Le Guin, didn't.
Now I am not really going to make the moral judgement
Oh really? What do you call what you said above
Some reasons then why one might want a different model
"greedy" for every last penny (perhaps justifiably so)
unable/unwilling to keep working and producing great output
product, while perhaps original and unique initially, remains fixed, or becomes stale or repititious
Seems to me you are calling anyone who doesn't agree with you either greedy, lazy, or untalented.
Like so many of your cohorts, you completely ignore the rights of the artist and/or copyright holder to make the decision about their work. This is not, as you imply, about fair use because fair use does not include making a complete copies of someone else's work and giving them away.
Unlike you, I have the courage to say what I believe up front and then stand behind them. You make excuses for unethical and immoral behavior and thus are yourself immoral and unethical.
Hi, dumbass, glad you could open you join the conversation like the asshole you are. Those were not examples of "crap" free software. Those were examples of what passes for good free software, and they still don't compare favorably to the commercial software listed. If you want crap software, take a look at any dozen random projects from freshmeat or sourceforge.
There were three examples, not two. It is interesting that you only choose to address two of them. That is called "cherry picking" and shows how much of an asshole you are.
By the way, OOo is based on StarOffice, so it started out as commercial, closed-source software and has only had marginal improvement since it was turned into "free" software.
I said I never need to use free software, not that I never use free software. You make stupid assumptions and have poor reading comprehension.
And, you keep using the tired argument of "The bad free software does not diminish the good free software" when the reality is that the "bad free software" diminishes "free software" as whole. Just like an transmission with a low signal to noise ratio diminishes the transmission. Your failure to understand that is not just your failure, but the failure of the whole FLOSS community. Most rational people will pay for a shiny pebble before they will dig through a mountain of shit to find one.
By far, the largest cost of the project was building the rovers and sending them to Mars. Every day of return amortizes the cost of sending the rovers to Mars. The scientists studying the data sent back would have been studying data regardless. This just means they have gotten way more data than they could have hoped for.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you didn't fix anything. The original poster didn't say anything about marketing pamphlets. The op said "this magical box is super accurate...".
Therefore, you are a shithead. Thanks for playing, go set yourself on fire.
Ok, so where do you calculate BAC?
Where is the polling of the sensors?
Where is the rest of the code for the device?
Please indicate where it is proven to be unreliable. What I see in the report is a lot of criticism of the design and implementation of the code. I see the design of the code would not be acceptable to the U.S. military or the U.S. government and that it would not pass an unnamed standard. I see many "should"s and "can"s and "might"s.
What I don't see is anything that proves the device itself is unreliable.
Did they test the code, and if so what were the results of the test? Were they able to show the device does not work accurately and reliably? I see nothing of that in the report.
If it is super accurate and reliable and last a long time on a set of batteries, what other tests are needed?
The real question is "Does it work repeatedly, reliably, and accurately?"
It doesn't matter how complex and/or ugly the code is if the code works beautifully.
Well, shithead, why is that on a third party site? Oh wait, I forgot this was FLOSS and documentation is supposed to be fucked up.
What you did is point out a major deficiency in Firefox and the rest of FLOSS. I commented on it. It is a serious flaw that many people prefer to overlook.
Why should I fix someone else's fuck-up?
Bullshit. That is just a bad excuse for poor programming.
Let me introduce you to the concept of the "Advanced Configuration" option. See, you would have a configuration panel that has all the common, basic settings and then a button, or even a tab, that opens up a panel with the advanced configuration options currently available only through "about:config" and it would be easy to find for budding geeks. As an added bonus, there could be tool tips about each setting and a help button that actually gives decent help on what they do and what are good settings.
I see you completely missed the point so I am going to make it real easy for you.
Aunt Sally, who knows little about computers and just wants them to work, downloads FireFox on your say so. How is she supposed to know about "about:config" or about a third party website?
Cousin Joe, who is an aspiring power user, wants to understand configuration settings for FireFox after downloading it. How is he supposed to know about "about:config" and it's settings?
Where is the documentation that lets even advanced users know of the existence of "about:config" and what it's many uses are? Is this information that is automagically implanted in people's brains when they download FireFox?
And why should any of that be necessary? Why not just be able to access it from the menu bar?
Where is the documentation on the "about:config" page and all it's options?
So, his solution is to allow others to redistribute one's work as long as the one redistributing the work make no money on the redistribution. This would effectively limit one's market, especially in a digital market, to one person who could then freely give it away to everyone, destroying one's ability to make money on the product.
One could set up two independent companies/organizations, one of which is a non-profit which distributes works under this license, and the other a shell company which makes revenue on ads and exists solely to direct people to the works provided by the first company. This would get around the "gross income" provision by moving most of the income to a company that is not bound by the license.
Interestingly, if one did the books right, one could buy a single copy of a book, convert the book to an electronic or book format, then print new copies of the book and sell them for the cost of printing and shipping. If one were to set up a company to do the printing and shipping, one could easily make money selling other people's work.
Doctorow is either being disingenuous, or he is an idiot, or both.
OK, dumbass, time to show what kind of ignorant, lying idiot you are.
There you go, shithead. A point by point refutation of your claims showing exactly how you lied. Or would you prefer to claim ignorance instead of malice?
So, now let's see them back up their contention with facts and evidence.
Now, I will wait for the koolaid drinking anti-DRM fanboys to mod me down.
If by "a metric other than what you like more" you mean "reviews and usage by the general public and most professionals", why then yes, dumbass, that is exactly it.
So, you can go out and buy a package that contains a razor and blades for the same amount one would pay for the same number of blades? Oh, wait, no you can't.
Are you done being a dumbass yet?
It is a right, legally given, just like the right to vote, the right not to be subject to unreasonable search and seizure, or the right not to be a slave, all of which are provided by law.
Or, do you suggest those are privileges as well?
Prove that or admit you are a lying scumbag.
It is funny you suggest sue the offenders when we have all seen how /. reacts to such lawsuits. Isn't that right Mr.NewYorkCountryHypocrite?
Well, asshole, the big fucking hole in your argument is that The Grateful Dead, many other "jam bands" got to choose to freely give away some of their material. The other artists, such as Ms. Le Guin, didn't.
Oh really? What do you call what you said above
Seems to me you are calling anyone who doesn't agree with you either greedy, lazy, or untalented.
Like so many of your cohorts, you completely ignore the rights of the artist and/or copyright holder to make the decision about their work. This is not, as you imply, about fair use because fair use does not include making a complete copies of someone else's work and giving them away.
Unlike you, I have the courage to say what I believe up front and then stand behind them. You make excuses for unethical and immoral behavior and thus are yourself immoral and unethical.
No, the idiot GP poster was saying that RedHat's product is Linux, and it is not. Redhat's product is, as you say, "support, training, etc...."
Maybe you should try paying better attention or taking a reading comprehension course.
In other words, I am right. Thanks for playing.
So, what you are saying is that you think everyone is like you, lacking in morals and ethics. Nice to know exactly the kind of waste of flesh you are.
Hi, dumbass, glad you could open you join the conversation like the asshole you are. Those were not examples of "crap" free software. Those were examples of what passes for good free software, and they still don't compare favorably to the commercial software listed. If you want crap software, take a look at any dozen random projects from freshmeat or sourceforge.
There were three examples, not two. It is interesting that you only choose to address two of them. That is called "cherry picking" and shows how much of an asshole you are.
By the way, OOo is based on StarOffice, so it started out as commercial, closed-source software and has only had marginal improvement since it was turned into "free" software.
I said I never need to use free software, not that I never use free software. You make stupid assumptions and have poor reading comprehension.
And, you keep using the tired argument of "The bad free software does not diminish the good free software" when the reality is that the "bad free software" diminishes "free software" as whole. Just like an transmission with a low signal to noise ratio diminishes the transmission. Your failure to understand that is not just your failure, but the failure of the whole FLOSS community. Most rational people will pay for a shiny pebble before they will dig through a mountain of shit to find one.
By far, the largest cost of the project was building the rovers and sending them to Mars. Every day of return amortizes the cost of sending the rovers to Mars. The scientists studying the data sent back would have been studying data regardless. This just means they have gotten way more data than they could have hoped for.