I'm an advanced user and I don't every want to know what a repository is. My mom definitely doesn't give a shit.
You'd rather hunt through the web for applications, install them manually (assuming their installers even work; how many Windows and Mac installers have I run that are just broken in some serious way? quite a lot), and keep them up to date manually or through their wildly varying auto-update mechanisms (which, again, vary wildly in quality and reliability)?
You're not an advanced user, you're a masochist. And so's your mom.
The correct answer remains the same: the industry need to offer better compensation.
Hah! You could offer me a million bucks a year and there are still certain fields I WILL NOT work IT in. Health care is one, finance is another. I do not want the stress of the environment, nor the knowledge that someone's life or livelihood may hinge on whether I inverted an 'if' test.
Compensation is not the only thing that keeps smart people out of health care.
Someone give this man a cigar. He's divined the actual purpose of the fee. The rest of you, who think that it's $0.99 per comment, you fail reading comprehension.
To be fair, the headline itself is poorly written, and does imply $0.99/comment.
Somebody at the paper most likely needs to cross check the name with somebody who's on public record as living in the paper's coverage area.
That's not really much assurance. I can get a credit card (or something they can't distinguish from a credit card) in the name of "John Smith" pretty easily, even though that's nowhere close to my real name. It might be a bit much to be able to spew random crap in a comments section, but trolls and astroturfers can be pretty motivated.
You are extremely confused about how the law works. Trademark law is used to prevent someone from using your names and marks to pretend they're selling your product (e.g. I can't make a stereo and slap a "Sony" label on it).
There is absolutely nothing in trademark law to prevent me from taking software under an open-source license, changing the name and logos, and redistributing it freely. This is why CentOS can take Red Hat's product, strip out/replace the Red Hat trademarks, and distribute it for free.
I think I see the problem. You don't seem to be aware that two federal courts of appeal (6th and 9th circuits) have already held source code to be speech protected by the First Amendment. Its mere distribution by its author/copyright holder cannot be restricted.
The act of converting from "Speech" to a "device or process" happens in the compilation process, not in the execution of the process.
I'm not sure you can make that assertion. What if I implemented something as a shell script, which is fully interpreted? Is it immediately infringing, or does it only infringe once interpreted (which happens in real-time at point of execution)?
What about languages that use intervening bytecode? If I take some Java and reduce it to JVM bytecode, is that infringing, or does it only become infringing once the JVM interprets the bytecode or the JIT reduces it to native machine code?
That raw code is speech is an unremarkable concept to most who are familiar with the subject, but when the speech becomes a device/process is not always completely clear.
Don't get me wrong, this really sucks for the guy and is completely unfair. But this sort of thing happens all the time. If this were a rare occurrence, then yeah, I'd be up in arms. It's sort of not newsworthy anymore.
I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, and maybe I even deserve it, but it's true.
You absolutely do deserve it, because it's _not_ true. This stance can be used to justify ignoring anything, including the most heinous crimes imaginable.
This may be true in the US, but apparently not in the Netherlands: the patent lawyer he contacted told him Shazam would have a case if he published the code.
No, the attorney told him he's risking a lawsuit and that releasing open-source code using patented techniques is a "grey area". None of that indicates a lawsuit would have merit. You can sue anybody for anything. By posting, you risk me suing you because I don't like your use of the letter 'z'. That doesn't mean I'd win.
By that logic you could freely distribute an infringing program as long as you don't run it.
Yes, exactly. In the same way that a description or schematic of a patented invention does not infringe a patent, simple source code does not infringe a patent. How is this difficult to understand?
What? Not all applications demand high write performance. Go set up a video-on-demand server with thousands of clients and spinning disks. Watch it chug.
Now toss those disks and buy one SSD. Watch it fly.
How is enterprise-level "uncertain"? The performance characteristics of SSDs almost _dictate_ their adoption. A single $250-500 SSD can easily substitute for an array of 15KRPM disks in many applications.
I don't personally think a "space tug" would have been the right thing at the time (or right now, for that matter), but considering the list of blunders in post-Apollo space exploration by this same general group of scientists, I wouldn't be so quick to assume they "probably" weren't stupid.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's when they actually lost all the "young, hip developers".
Not really. C# is the cleanest language I've ever coded in. It's the libraries that are fucked up: the.NET base libraries are basically the managed versions of the Win32 platform.
Compare Qt, which is built on C++ (their greatest flaw), but actually do magic along the nice library to make manual garbage collection look easy, and have an event system which is multithreaded by default. With Qt, C++ looks more like a scripting language (with the byte-level stuff available if you need it), which is exactly what.NET would have needed to do.
What in the hell are you babbling about? How does a snarky comment about Ballmer's on-stage antics turn into anything regarding C#/.NET/C++/Qt?
I see the reason to have this sort of thing...but, I'm curious, why the Lorem ipsum bit so omnipresent in mockups, as opposed to everyone doing their own thing? I'm sure the same purpose could be served by many different pieces of text. Is it just a matter of copy/paste is so much easier? Is there something particular this does better than anything else someone could think up?
Skylab was a lab in space before the space shuttle. Salyut 1 was before that, but it had two missions that both failed. Soyuz 10 that could not board due to fire and Soyuz 11 that crew died on rentry do to a lab. Shuttles are pointless ISS could have been lifted by cheaper and safer rockets.
You seem to be wrong on all accounts.
I'd also like to know how the hell he thinks Mir was launched. Magical fairy dust? 'cause the Shuttle sure didn't carry it up.
I keep hearing nonsense like this, and it's really stupid. You're stuck in a Cold War mentality (which was absurd even during the Cold War).
Who the hell cares if there's no Shuttle replacement ready? Manned space exploration is about science, and there is no scientific need so urgent as to justify the continuation of the 30-year-old disaster that is the Space Shuttle.
SpaceX will be up to speed in a few years. Boeing and/or Lockheed Martin can man-rate a rocket and capsule in a similar amount of time if needed.
There is absolutely no reason to continue the massively overpriced and unnecessarily dangerous shuttle program just to prevent a 2-5 year gap in manned exploration.
With our current three-Shuttle fleet, you could only reasonably expect to run 4-6 missions a year at most anyway, and I promise you that the termination of the program would not come when the new vehicle is ready, but when you are suddenly left with *two* Shuttles and seven fewer astronauts.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an advanced user and I don't every want to know what a repository is. My mom definitely doesn't give a shit.
You'd rather hunt through the web for applications, install them manually (assuming their installers even work; how many Windows and Mac installers have I run that are just broken in some serious way? quite a lot), and keep them up to date manually or through their wildly varying auto-update mechanisms (which, again, vary wildly in quality and reliability)?
You're not an advanced user, you're a masochist. And so's your mom.
The correct answer remains the same: the industry need to offer better compensation.
Hah! You could offer me a million bucks a year and there are still certain fields I WILL NOT work IT in. Health care is one, finance is another. I do not want the stress of the environment, nor the knowledge that someone's life or livelihood may hinge on whether I inverted an 'if' test.
Compensation is not the only thing that keeps smart people out of health care.
Ummm...No it doesn't. "One time fee" means what to you?
Speaking of reading comprehension fail... Do you know what "headline" means?
Someone give this man a cigar. He's divined the actual purpose of the fee. The rest of you, who think that it's $0.99 per comment, you fail reading comprehension.
To be fair, the headline itself is poorly written, and does imply $0.99/comment.
Somebody at the paper most likely needs to cross check the name with somebody who's on public record as living in the paper's coverage area.
That's not really much assurance. I can get a credit card (or something they can't distinguish from a credit card) in the name of "John Smith" pretty easily, even though that's nowhere close to my real name. It might be a bit much to be able to spew random crap in a comments section, but trolls and astroturfers can be pretty motivated.
You are extremely confused about how the law works. Trademark law is used to prevent someone from using your names and marks to pretend they're selling your product (e.g. I can't make a stereo and slap a "Sony" label on it).
There is absolutely nothing in trademark law to prevent me from taking software under an open-source license, changing the name and logos, and redistributing it freely. This is why CentOS can take Red Hat's product, strip out/replace the Red Hat trademarks, and distribute it for free.
Have you tried actually reading the first criteria of the open source definition?
http://opensource.org/docs/osd
I think I see the problem. You don't seem to be aware that two federal courts of appeal (6th and 9th circuits) have already held source code to be speech protected by the First Amendment. Its mere distribution by its author/copyright holder cannot be restricted.
The act of converting from "Speech" to a "device or process" happens in the compilation process, not in the execution of the process.
I'm not sure you can make that assertion. What if I implemented something as a shell script, which is fully interpreted? Is it immediately infringing, or does it only infringe once interpreted (which happens in real-time at point of execution)?
What about languages that use intervening bytecode? If I take some Java and reduce it to JVM bytecode, is that infringing, or does it only become infringing once the JVM interprets the bytecode or the JIT reduces it to native machine code?
That raw code is speech is an unremarkable concept to most who are familiar with the subject, but when the speech becomes a device/process is not always completely clear.
Don't get me wrong, this really sucks for the guy and is completely unfair. But this sort of thing happens all the time. If this were a rare occurrence, then yeah, I'd be up in arms. It's sort of not newsworthy anymore.
I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, and maybe I even deserve it, but it's true.
You absolutely do deserve it, because it's _not_ true. This stance can be used to justify ignoring anything, including the most heinous crimes imaginable.
This may be true in the US, but apparently not in the Netherlands: the patent lawyer he contacted told him Shazam would have a case if he published the code.
No, the attorney told him he's risking a lawsuit and that releasing open-source code using patented techniques is a "grey area". None of that indicates a lawsuit would have merit. You can sue anybody for anything. By posting, you risk me suing you because I don't like your use of the letter 'z'. That doesn't mean I'd win.
By that logic you could freely distribute an infringing program as long as you don't run it.
Yes, exactly. In the same way that a description or schematic of a patented invention does not infringe a patent, simple source code does not infringe a patent. How is this difficult to understand?
What? Not all applications demand high write performance. Go set up a video-on-demand server with thousands of clients and spinning disks. Watch it chug.
Now toss those disks and buy one SSD. Watch it fly.
... Yeah, a round handle on a weapon-like object, a highly original thought... Oh WAIT!
How is enterprise-level "uncertain"? The performance characteristics of SSDs almost _dictate_ their adoption. A single $250-500 SSD can easily substitute for an array of 15KRPM disks in many applications.
I don't personally think a "space tug" would have been the right thing at the time (or right now, for that matter), but considering the list of blunders in post-Apollo space exploration by this same general group of scientists, I wouldn't be so quick to assume they "probably" weren't stupid.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's when they actually lost all the "young, hip developers".
Not really. C# is the cleanest language I've ever coded in. It's the libraries that are fucked up: the .NET base libraries are basically the managed versions of the Win32 platform.
Compare Qt, which is built on C++ (their greatest flaw), but actually do magic along the nice library to make manual garbage collection look easy, and have an event system which is multithreaded by default. With Qt, C++ looks more like a scripting language (with the byte-level stuff available if you need it), which is exactly what .NET would have needed to do.
What in the hell are you babbling about? How does a snarky comment about Ballmer's on-stage antics turn into anything regarding C#/.NET/C++/Qt?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's when they actually lost all the "young, hip developers".
The GOP is about 2 elections away from advocating the abolishing of public education/Social Security and declaring martial law
Uh, they're well beyond that by now. I take it you fell asleep for a decade and haven't turned on a TV since you woke up?
I see the reason to have this sort of thing...but, I'm curious, why the Lorem ipsum bit so omnipresent in mockups, as opposed to everyone doing their own thing? I'm sure the same purpose could be served by many different pieces of text. Is it just a matter of copy/paste is so much easier? Is there something particular this does better than anything else someone could think up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorem_ipsum
It's pushing to expect Americans to know there is another side of the world.
Isn't that where all the Commies live?
They said the earliest they expected to be able to retry was about 48 hours, but they don't really know if it'll work.
It has a big cargo bay that you can fill up with stuff, including a space lab.
The larger Atlas V variants have roughly the same payload capacity as the Shuttle (including in volume) at about a quarter of the cost.
We do not need another NASA heavy-lift vehicle.
Skylab was a lab in space before the space shuttle. Salyut 1 was before that, but it had two missions that both failed. Soyuz 10 that could not board due to fire and Soyuz 11 that crew died on rentry do to a lab. Shuttles are pointless ISS could have been lifted by cheaper and safer rockets.
You seem to be wrong on all accounts.
I'd also like to know how the hell he thinks Mir was launched. Magical fairy dust? 'cause the Shuttle sure didn't carry it up.
I keep hearing nonsense like this, and it's really stupid. You're stuck in a Cold War mentality (which was absurd even during the Cold War).
Who the hell cares if there's no Shuttle replacement ready? Manned space exploration is about science, and there is no scientific need so urgent as to justify the continuation of the 30-year-old disaster that is the Space Shuttle.
SpaceX will be up to speed in a few years. Boeing and/or Lockheed Martin can man-rate a rocket and capsule in a similar amount of time if needed.
There is absolutely no reason to continue the massively overpriced and unnecessarily dangerous shuttle program just to prevent a 2-5 year gap in manned exploration.
With our current three-Shuttle fleet, you could only reasonably expect to run 4-6 missions a year at most anyway, and I promise you that the termination of the program would not come when the new vehicle is ready, but when you are suddenly left with *two* Shuttles and seven fewer astronauts.