This looks like something written by Stallman himself. And yes, he has a point, but who is he trying to convince?
People are going to be put off by calling them "sins". Learning how to use windows is not "poisoning". And people simply don't care.
Tell people why proprietary software is bad for them, why you don't want to support MS and why you do want to support GNU/Linux. Don't just lay into the "MS is evil" argument. It's too strong. It scares people off.
Whether that is better or not is subjective. "Goto considered harmful" has become dogma, but while your example is a very good example of goto used well, most programmers would use it to write spaghetti code. Barring the use of the keyword means that it does only get used by people who know exactly what they're doing.
The developers had the task of producing the game to spec on time. The spec included not having this particular object. The game was released to spec and on time.
Yes, they should have fixed this sooner. Since they didn't that isn't really a lot of help.
There's a reasonable chance the telegraph got it wrong. Slashdot readers make some pretty serious mistakes bout copyright and they're typically pretty interested in the subject. If this is written by a slightly bored lazy journalist then it's not to be relied on.
He is a developer so by definition he is computer literate; you don't "accidentally" copy the wrong files (especially since they have BASH LOGS of what he did).
Complex source tree. Closed source gets muddled up with open source somehow. He forgets to exclude certain files. Easy to do.
However, even if what he says is true WHY IN THE NAME OF FUCK would you copy Open Source Software from your development machine instead of directly from the source?
You have 30 different applications each doing a little job. You can either copy them all into a tarball, or hunt them down individually on the internet.
On top of that, according to the original Slashdot article a while back he also encrypted the files. WHY IN THE NAME OF FUCK would you bother to encrypt Open Source Software files?
This one comes down to "why not?". Maybe he put them into a zip and always adds a password. maybe he just copied them to an encrypted drive. I'm not sure about this one myself. I'd like some more information about how the files were encrypted.
If it weren't for genetic discrimination, there would be very few women with NCAA athletic scholarships, as they would be forced to compete for slots on nominally mixed-gender teams based purely on ability.
Perhaps, but this got me thinking - sports where women do have an advantage (or are at least neutral) still seem female dominated. I can hardly think of any female racing drivers, and even horse racing is male dominated even though women typically have an advantage.
This is a retcon (I think it was actually from one of the spin-off novels). The problem is, a parsec is a huge distance. We're looking at interstellar distances. Way more than the distance a black hole would affect you.
Blasters have a lot of ammunition, can penetrate trooper armour, and have inherent tracer rounds. Also we have no idea whether traditional firearms even exist in the Star Wars universe. A landspeeder is a cheap transport in a fairly underdeveloped region. R2 units have no need to speak. Most electronic devices don't. They use standardised alerts. C-3P0 is cowardly because protocol droids are expensive bits of kit and should protect themselves (R2 units are more likely to be useful in the field so are designed to be a little less safe).
No mention of the bridge on a Star Destroyer being such an easy target for a kamikaze, or poor visibility in a Tie Fighter.
the entire globe managed to switch to the metric system, including the U.K.
Well... the UK is trying. Except for road signs, milk, beer and temperatures on hot days*
*Yes, newspapers will say "What a scorcher" telling us that the temperature is a whopping 95F, then six months later tell us parts of the country have dropped to -5C.
Okay... I spend a pretty decent amount on media. I buy mp3s from Amazon, I buy DVDs and I read a lot of books. And yes, I download a fair bit as well - an action that causes balance sheet losses of zero. Perhaps I'd download less if all this stuff was conveniently available in this country.
The media cartels charges artists losses for breakages on mp3s, making music into "works for hire" so they get to hang on to copyright, lobbying for longer copyright terms for music that has already been released, and completely lie about the profitability of films to avoid paying royalties to the copyright holders.
If they were living, thinking beings that actually had feelings perhaps I'd care but they're not. They're machines designed for maximising revenue. I'm fine with that but I'm going to be minimising my costs thanks. That involves promoting legislation that allows me to do so. They set the rules. I'll play by those rules.
But honestly, whether I have a sense of morality or not is beside the point. Let's take it as read that I don't. That I will act purely rationally in my own self interest. Let's also assume that those who like to get their music for free also have no morality. That means that 8.3% of the population will be inclined to vote rationally in their own self interest. That's typically enough to swing an election.
I'm talking game theory here. My actual views on the morality of downloading are a lot more complex but completely beside the point.
Perhaps. But it makes more sense to vote against the party that stops me getting stuff for free than to change how I get my music. I try to choose who I vote for on rational decisions rather than moral decision, and even if morality does come into it I'll vote on my morality rather than yours.
I'm one of the people that would become a criminal from illegal downloading, this matter would affect me a heck of a lot more than the economy, the environment, antisocial behaviour, crime and the war in Afghanistan. I think the rational option is to vote for the party that isn't going to fine me £50000.
According to the article, this is "a practice engaged in by one in 12 of the population".
If that large a portion of the population think that something should not be illegal (and it's reasonable to assume that most people consider behaviour they indulge in should not be illegal), then perhaps their views should be considered rather than having them declared criminals. Perhaps though, Labour really wants to lose the next election. At least they consider losing 8.3% of the vote acceptable losses.
I like real names. I can't remember whether I'm using lonsp2556 or lonsp2566.
I know before I was using Tiberius (Roman Emperor naming for Sparcs), Lithium (Element names for SGI machines), Raven (Wild animals for that office), and Mustard (That place just had arbitrary names).
BY PURCHASING TICKETS ONLINE, VIA PHONE OR MAIL ORDER FROM BURNING MAN, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS TERMS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE GIVEN UP SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, AND I DO SO KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT ANY INDUCEMENT OR DURESS.
How do you know you've agreed to the waiver if you haven't read the waiver? Surely if you buy tickets over the phone, (unless they explicitly ask you whether you agree to the waiver) neither party can reasonably expect that you've read the waiver.
And that's assuming this clause is even valid, which I think seems unlikely.
would it make sense to check whether (s)he is at minus $20,000 on her/his MasterCard?
I don't know. Is there a correlation between fraud and affordable levels of debt? If there is then fair enough, but I'd like there to be more than a hunch. Just because something is obvious doesn't always make it true.
Price could be a factor. Google can afford to give Chrome away for free (in fact I think that's about their only effective option). PC prices are constantly falling. I don't know how much an OEM licence for Windows costs, but I expect it's at least 10% of the price of the cheapest Windows PC. That 10% difference is quite significant. Even 5% could matter if it means you can reduce the cost of the machine from $310 to $295, which means going under an important psychological threshold.
Apple could have been competing on price but that's not their strategy. They're in the business of selling premium equipment. The advantages of MacOS (Whether genuine or merely perceived) mean people will pay the extra for it. If Chrome can be seen to be as good as Windows, people will not pay the extra for Windows.
I mean that lock-in means that Apple removing an item from their product line will have a different effect for Apple than Dell removing an item from theirs will have on Dell.
As for whether it's customer abuse or not, it doesn't really matter to the argument.
Slashdot Mirror
This looks like something written by Stallman himself. And yes, he has a point, but who is he trying to convince?
People are going to be put off by calling them "sins". Learning how to use windows is not "poisoning". And people simply don't care.
Tell people why proprietary software is bad for them, why you don't want to support MS and why you do want to support GNU/Linux. Don't just lay into the "MS is evil" argument. It's too strong. It scares people off.
Isn't that going to cost more than the laptop?
Surely you could do that as a nested if.
Whether that is better or not is subjective. "Goto considered harmful" has become dogma, but while your example is a very good example of goto used well, most programmers would use it to write spaghetti code. Barring the use of the keyword means that it does only get used by people who know exactly what they're doing.
The developers had the task of producing the game to spec on time. The spec included not having this particular object. The game was released to spec and on time.
Yes, they should have fixed this sooner. Since they didn't that isn't really a lot of help.
There's a reasonable chance the telegraph got it wrong. Slashdot readers make some pretty serious mistakes bout copyright and they're typically pretty interested in the subject. If this is written by a slightly bored lazy journalist then it's not to be relied on.
He is a developer so by definition he is computer literate; you don't "accidentally" copy the wrong files (especially since they have BASH LOGS of what he did).
Complex source tree. Closed source gets muddled up with open source somehow. He forgets to exclude certain files. Easy to do.
However, even if what he says is true WHY IN THE NAME OF FUCK would you copy Open Source Software from your development machine instead of directly from the source? You have 30 different applications each doing a little job. You can either copy them all into a tarball, or hunt them down individually on the internet.
On top of that, according to the original Slashdot article a while back he also encrypted the files. WHY IN THE NAME OF FUCK would you bother to encrypt Open Source Software files?
This one comes down to "why not?". Maybe he put them into a zip and always adds a password. maybe he just copied them to an encrypted drive. I'm not sure about this one myself. I'd like some more information about how the files were encrypted.
If it weren't for genetic discrimination, there would be very few women with NCAA athletic scholarships, as they would be forced to compete for slots on nominally mixed-gender teams based purely on ability.
Perhaps, but this got me thinking - sports where women do have an advantage (or are at least neutral) still seem female dominated. I can hardly think of any female racing drivers, and even horse racing is male dominated even though women typically have an advantage.
There is no sound in space.
There's no incidental music in the real world. I like to consider space sound effects to be the same sort of thing.
This is a retcon (I think it was actually from one of the spin-off novels). The problem is, a parsec is a huge distance. We're looking at interstellar distances. Way more than the distance a black hole would affect you.
Blasters have a lot of ammunition, can penetrate trooper armour, and have inherent tracer rounds. Also we have no idea whether traditional firearms even exist in the Star Wars universe. A landspeeder is a cheap transport in a fairly underdeveloped region. R2 units have no need to speak. Most electronic devices don't. They use standardised alerts. C-3P0 is cowardly because protocol droids are expensive bits of kit and should protect themselves (R2 units are more likely to be useful in the field so are designed to be a little less safe).
No mention of the bridge on a Star Destroyer being such an easy target for a kamikaze, or poor visibility in a Tie Fighter.
the entire globe managed to switch to the metric system, including the U.K.
Well... the UK is trying. Except for road signs, milk, beer and temperatures on hot days*
*Yes, newspapers will say "What a scorcher" telling us that the temperature is a whopping 95F, then six months later tell us parts of the country have dropped to -5C.
Okay... I spend a pretty decent amount on media. I buy mp3s from Amazon, I buy DVDs and I read a lot of books. And yes, I download a fair bit as well - an action that causes balance sheet losses of zero. Perhaps I'd download less if all this stuff was conveniently available in this country.
The media cartels charges artists losses for breakages on mp3s, making music into "works for hire" so they get to hang on to copyright, lobbying for longer copyright terms for music that has already been released, and completely lie about the profitability of films to avoid paying royalties to the copyright holders.
If they were living, thinking beings that actually had feelings perhaps I'd care but they're not. They're machines designed for maximising revenue. I'm fine with that but I'm going to be minimising my costs thanks. That involves promoting legislation that allows me to do so. They set the rules. I'll play by those rules.
But honestly, whether I have a sense of morality or not is beside the point. Let's take it as read that I don't. That I will act purely rationally in my own self interest. Let's also assume that those who like to get their music for free also have no morality. That means that 8.3% of the population will be inclined to vote rationally in their own self interest. That's typically enough to swing an election.
I'm talking game theory here. My actual views on the morality of downloading are a lot more complex but completely beside the point.
Perhaps. But it makes more sense to vote against the party that stops me getting stuff for free than to change how I get my music. I try to choose who I vote for on rational decisions rather than moral decision, and even if morality does come into it I'll vote on my morality rather than yours.
I'm one of the people that would become a criminal from illegal downloading, this matter would affect me a heck of a lot more than the economy, the environment, antisocial behaviour, crime and the war in Afghanistan. I think the rational option is to vote for the party that isn't going to fine me £50000.
No they shouldn't. Governments should act out of loyalty, not fear.
Youtube pays the PRS a royalty.
According to the article, this is "a practice engaged in by one in 12 of the population".
If that large a portion of the population think that something should not be illegal (and it's reasonable to assume that most people consider behaviour they indulge in should not be illegal), then perhaps their views should be considered rather than having them declared criminals. Perhaps though, Labour really wants to lose the next election. At least they consider losing 8.3% of the vote acceptable losses.
I like real names. I can't remember whether I'm using lonsp2556 or lonsp2566.
I know before I was using Tiberius (Roman Emperor naming for Sparcs), Lithium (Element names for SGI machines), Raven (Wild animals for that office), and Mustard (That place just had arbitrary names).
BY PURCHASING TICKETS ONLINE, VIA PHONE OR MAIL ORDER FROM BURNING MAN, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS TERMS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE GIVEN UP SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, AND I DO SO KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT ANY INDUCEMENT OR DURESS.
How do you know you've agreed to the waiver if you haven't read the waiver? Surely if you buy tickets over the phone, (unless they explicitly ask you whether you agree to the waiver) neither party can reasonably expect that you've read the waiver.
And that's assuming this clause is even valid, which I think seems unlikely.
No.
Although it would probably help to have some sort of plausible evidence that you no longer have the key.
would it make sense to check whether (s)he is at minus $20,000 on her/his MasterCard?
I don't know. Is there a correlation between fraud and affordable levels of debt? If there is then fair enough, but I'd like there to be more than a hunch. Just because something is obvious doesn't always make it true.
Depending on where you live, $1000 might actually be cheaper than a parking space.
Price could be a factor. Google can afford to give Chrome away for free (in fact I think that's about their only effective option). PC prices are constantly falling. I don't know how much an OEM licence for Windows costs, but I expect it's at least 10% of the price of the cheapest Windows PC. That 10% difference is quite significant. Even 5% could matter if it means you can reduce the cost of the machine from $310 to $295, which means going under an important psychological threshold.
Apple could have been competing on price but that's not their strategy. They're in the business of selling premium equipment. The advantages of MacOS (Whether genuine or merely perceived) mean people will pay the extra for it. If Chrome can be seen to be as good as Windows, people will not pay the extra for Windows.
I mean that lock-in means that Apple removing an item from their product line will have a different effect for Apple than Dell removing an item from theirs will have on Dell.
As for whether it's customer abuse or not, it doesn't really matter to the argument.