One thing to keep in mind is that the EU has some "interesting" side-effects that make thing a bit more complex; I don't know the details and I might be wrong but I've read some time ago that there is a EU-wide directive that makes it compulsory for a country to deport one of its own citizens to another country if they broke a law there.
The last example I hear was about a Danish national who was deported to Germany because of his involvement in a "nazi" music label, and that carries a prison term in Germany even if it isn't illegal in Denmark.
Problem being that since they are "nazis" anyone complaining is immediately shut down with "Don't tell me *you* are a Nazi!" - kind of like the Internet and kiddie porn.
Again, not sure on how this works, but I wouldn't be surprised.
That is needed in order to continue to use the "Mac" vs. "PC" thing that they've got going, now that Macs *are* PCs. Since this sort of removes part of the glamour even slashdot editorials adopt a "PC == Wintel" vocabulary, even though a "PC" with Linux or BSD has exactly the same difference than a "PC" with OSX.
I still remember when/. actually had people who used free unices.
That resemblance you mention is more likely due to the shared origins of native Britons and Iberians than any Roman conquest. This is well known due to the R1b Y haplogorup distribution that reaches the highest percentages in Iberia and the British Isles (and especially in Ireland).
See this reference for some further info, although the information in there is rather speculative.
I think that the GPL actually always had that advantage over non-copyleft licences: while it doesn't stop a competitor from taking the code it pretty much guarantees that any "competitive advantage" that arises is smoothed out since they must make that available. This makes it somewhat preferable for a company that wants to release some in-house developed code ans is concerned about that angle.
I've read the RPL briefly, and it seems that the main difference is that it requires that everything related to the code must be distributed (scripts, auxiliary programs not directly related with the program, etc), which is a bit to much IMO since it becomes very unclear what must and must not be shared - but perhaps I'm not reading it with the necessary attention
Really? I personally think that one of the few advantages that Symphony has over OO is the menu layout and user interface.
Plus, likings or dislikings apart, I think that there is one main advantage in Notes8 and Symphony that is for me more important: regardless of the user interface it makes it possible to send and receive ODF documents in an entreprise setting *without* having to send an email explaining what that.ods is and what the user needs to install to open it. This by itself if valuable for me.
Referring to the two PCs in your basement as a "server room" is a bit extreme, but to each his own I suppose.
And no, it is not that Ubuntu is "bad", just that *presently* it isn't a contender: people who install servers typically prefer Debian, businesses that need support RHEL and SuSE (on which most applications are certified).
This "Ubuntu is winning everywhere!" kind of remind me the Gentoo frenzy some years ago. It's natural, but as all distribution wars can have an overall negative impact on actual Linux adoption (since sometimes advocates will be against a certain distribution "in the server room" and will provide most of the arguments that will be used to install Windows).
To lose body-fat and gain muscle mass you will most likely need to cycle between the two objectives; food is of paramount importance here, without going into much detail to gain muscle you need to actually (image that) eat more than you waste, and to lose fat the opposite. The amount and type of exercise you do, plus your diet, is what determines if you gain a lot of muscle and just a bit of fat or the opposite.
As for exercise routines, I would recommend heading to bodybuilding.com. Yes, I know, sounds like something you don't want to do but these guys tend to be the ones who actually know about these stuff, more so than the "fitness" crowd. Even if your objective is "merely" to become more agile, with less fat and "harder" and not a gigantic mammal with muscles coming out of your ears that site has lots of routines and explanations; think of them as the Debian or BSD crowd: even when people just want a pretty desktop they are generally the crowd who has the answer to the questions.
Just to complement, that site as lots of routines to do without any fancy equipment. You might invest in some dumbbells though, there is little you can't do with dumbbells, a bench and good posture.
This brings me to the second part of my answer, which is that is generally easier and better to pay membership in a gym, regardless of initial feelings of inadequacy. They have the right equipment, other facilities that are nice to have (think sauna) and it's not like they are a social club where you actually have to talk with people.
You could even by surprised to start talking with people from very different walks of life and getting along just fine. There is a self-promoted ghetto thing in the "ahh we're geeks and nobody understands us" mantra.
On top of this I know that I'm personally much more prone to actually do stuff in the gym than at home, maybe because I'm paying for it. Regardless of motivation I do think it is something you should consider, even if you don't care for the classes (I mostly don't) the weight-lifting equipment alone is important for a good routine.
The protest is using the channels that Apple has made available to raise their awareness on the DRM issue. The "Genius" are there to answer technical questions, and while I believe that everyone should be polite and civil I can perfectly understand the usage of this channel to convey the concerns.
Inconvenience to Apple users is likely unavoidable and is something that is unfortunate. However this is true for many different kinds of protests; what I mean by these is that inconvenience to others isn't by itself reason enough stop doing protests.
As for the spam analogy, I don't agree. The questions are technology related, and the Genius are there to answer technology-related questions. Granted that this isn't what they probably expect, but it is not like they are going to ask them about the stock-market of the fishing industry.
Oh come on. If they arranged a DOS of Hotmail most people would agree they need to be prosecuted. How is this different?
I'm not sure what is the similarity. *If* the DBD crowd said something like "let's write to badmofo@hotmail.com to express our views on the issue" would that be a DOS? When some years ago a movement was created to coordinate the asking of MS Windows refunds for OEM purchases, is that also a DOS?
Again, it seems to me that this is only a issue because it is Apple. The DBD website has some specific questions to ask Apple, and I have yet to see them tackled by those who dismiss the action (and I have said that personally I'm not sure on the appropriateness of the method chosen). What I have read in this threads was a FSF guy answering that this follows lack of will from Apple to talk about this issues at a higher level.
Why does it seem evident? Why must I like or dislike Apple any more or less than I dislike Dell or HP? The only difference is that for most Apple supporters any kind of disagreement with Apple is some sort of grave offence only explained with some supposed hate for their brand. Apple to me is nothing more and nothing less than a logo on a piece of plastic, and the thing that matters to me is their policy on DRM and others.
I would find it funny if they did this to Microsoft sure,
Here you have it then. I don't like or dislike Apple any more or less than I like or dislike Microsoft. Actually I'm lying - in general I think that Microsoft always was a bigger danger, and as such it has been the target of *countless* campaigns, from the FSF and others. It seems however that when complaining about Apple suddenly it's a matter of "hate" and other rules apply.
If the FSF thinks that all software should be free then they are morons
That's what the FSF *has always said*, and if anything they are quite vocal about it. I find it interesting that Apple users feel so threatened by that, it's not like they are not using a proprietary operating system. This situation however is solely about DRM - the DRM that smells bad when made by others but suddenly smells like roses when used and propagated by Apple.
This isn't just a "not great" strategy, it is going to waste a lot of people's time.
There are a lot of things in life that waste peoples time. Like trying to get the MS Windows reimbursement when it is bundled. The sheer amount of hours that it takes means that some other poor users have to wait in queue to get support. Does this mean that I should just pay and shut up? I don't think so. Sometimes it is not only inevitable to be inconvenient, it's necessary.
and I'm sorry if you somehow feel your self worth should be lower because you don't have a Mac
I get the humour, although I must say that 1) I have a MacBook in the household and 2) I find it almost comical the projection that Apple users make about "self-worth", like anybody but them actually cares about their brand. Actually, it's part of the lack of substance that I've seen in this threads: no answer to the actual points and questions addressed to the "Genius" about DRM, just a lot of posturing about "self-worth". I must confess that Apple in itself - and Apple users - are indifferent to me... one is a brand, the others are users of proprietary UNIX OS. Nothing more, nothing less.
I do however like that my system has a lot of the security benefits of a Linux based system
That's great. Use it then. The discussion never was about why people like OSX. Windows users have just as valid reasons to use is, as do Linux and BSD users. Nothing new, nothing different. I certainly have nothing against it - it seems like a decent OS to use, but my opinion is irrelevant.
It looks to me however that Apple users like to think of themselves as something other than users of a specific proprietary OS and get nervous when confronted with the fact Apple *is* using and propagating DRM. If, as you said, there is nothing wrong with it, I don't get the defensiveness and lack of addressing of the actual complaints and the side-tracking of the debate to how great OSX is and how Apple has the right to do foo and bar (Apple users in general talk a lot about the rights that Apple has, including being great defenders of EULAs and the like).
Listen, I understand that. I'm not trying to be excessively confrontational or anything, and I'm partial to this since I directly and indirectly support the FSF. But at least concede that doing *anything* that is even *mildly* against Apple is always something that will face *extreme* objections from Apple users, regardless of the merit of the complaint.
As for influencing, well, for the FSF there is little difference between people buying Apple or Microsoft. Sure, one is UNIX and has more contributions to free and open-source projects, but the FSF is not known from being an organisation that settles for "partly good enough" standards. As such this is no different from the other DRM campaigns targeted at other companies.
Again, I'm not personally convinced this is a great strategy, but the objections I've seen reek of "this is Apple, how dare they!" syndrome.
You're projecting. "Everybody" != Apple "users". While I can see some decent arguments made over this they are clouded by the feeling that Apple users have first and foremost an allegiance to anything that Apple does since most of them bought a one-way ticket to self-worth with their MacBook.
You're downmodded, since/. nowadays is inhabited more by Apple and Windows users than anything else, but you're right. While I can see some decent arguments against the campaign all that I've read so far reeks of "oh they made a move against my Apple, I'll pretend I give a fuck about the FSF to express my contempt about anyone who makes a move against them since I value my iPhone over anything else".
Bloody sold-out retards. I'm beginning to miss the "BSD zealots", at least their hear is in the right place.
"Lean", "mean", "power user", "guerilla OS", damn. There is something rather sad is the attempt to make Windows sound like something interesting, something "rad".
I guess it's a form of self-justification. Some people can't take the hit of using Linux on their daily lives, and that is perfectly understandable all things considered, but trying to make it "it is just as elite!" is depressing to watch, like the guy who bought the mini-van because of the space but feels the need to justify to others that the mini-van is truly a racing vehicle.
I somewhat agree with some of your comments - I have answered something similar to some other comments in this thread - and would like to make some further comments:
Brazilians tend to have a hard time understanding European Portuguese, because they don't get to hear a lot of it.
Agreed, the situation is indeed asymmetrical. The same - less pronounced, surely - can be seen in the American English and British English situation: see here for a purely anecdotal reference.
I am however aware of some supporting arguments in your favour: in recent years several Portuguese actors have participated in Brazilian soaps and they must avoid speaking quickly or they wouldn't be understood. As you said familiarity plays a key role in this.
Both of these examples definitely have to do with the fact that Brazil and France have bigger populations and more cultural impact than Portugal and Quebec; Paris is the center of the French-speaking world, and while Brazil can't claim to be the center of the Portuguese-speaking world, it has an order of magnitude more lusophones than Portugal. There's no such situation for English and Spanish; none of the urban dialects is isolated from any others.
Yes, I mentioned that in some other comment, the fact that Brazil is politically unified and huge has created a different situation - a different power relation, if you will - than the one that exists with French, for example. You however are the one understating the existing different variation in both English and Spanish: several English variations are hard for many English themselves to understand, let alone Americans. Someone from Santa Catarina and someone from Bahia will also speak very different Brazilian Portuguese, and the mutual intelligibility will depend on the amount of familiarity they have.
Structural similarities (which you overstate; the phonology of European and Brazilian Portuguese is substantially different)
Again, no more substantial than the differences between a Texan and a Scouser, or a New Yorker and a Londoner. Language evolution makes that something unavoidable in languages that span continents, and the fact remains that regardless of power relations and lack of familiarity the language is the same. As for structural similarity, it is not an overstatement since it is an integral part of what defines a language, even if it doesn't guarantee mutual spoken understanding when strong regional variations are considered.
You can quite easily fail to understand a language or dialect that's extremely similar to yours if you have very little exposure to it. Where the similarity helps is that you can pick it up in weeks instead of years.
Well, I agree with that. I must however say that I've both been to Brazil and interacted with my fair share of Brazilians in Portugal, and always found the supposed lack of mutual intelligibility more of a fashion statement than anything else. This is purely my experience though, and largely based in interactions with middle-class speakers. I've also worked directly with Americans and British, and seen that mutual intelligibility between English speakers is also something that shouldn't be taken as always easy and guaranteed - probably true for any language in different degrees.
Sorry, that's one hella messy sentence that I can't follow. I'll reiterate one of my examples from above: the French in general don't understand Quebecois (nevermind Cajun), but the Quebecois understand the French.
Sorry about that, I tend to write in one breath which is something prone to create those ghastly sentences, especially when not writing in my native language. What I meant to say is that the two languages I know best - Portuguese and English - tend to be more "muted", with more "closed" vowel sounds that tend to make them harder to learn and understand than the New World variations. I know for sure th
I must say that I'm only mildy familiar with the Spanish situation, and let me thank you for your very informational answer.
I was not speaking about formal adoption of the language variations - since most European language Academies tend to be highly impermeable to New World influences - but in terms of mutual comprehension; maybe Spanish is different,and the example you gave is enough to convince me of that. That can probably be related to one important detail: English and Portuguese have a single, almost continental-sized block of speakers in the Americas with a lot of international projection and politically unified, and so I suppose that both American English and Brazilian Portuguese tends to be familiar to Brits and Portuguese...maybe the political division of Spanish American has prevented this when Spanish is concerned.
Wait, what? Last I checked the British really enjoy making fun of Americans for referring to American English as American.
Well, yes, when Americans do it is seems silly, but when Brits do it it's different:)... see TheRaven64 reply, but it reflects the same thing when speaking about Portuguese and Brazilians: when someone from Brazil says they speak "Brazilian" (similar to a US citizen saying that they speak "American") they are not in general using it as way to differentiate between different language variations but as an absolute statement: "Yes, we do truly believe we speak a language called Brazilian/American, wither because we truely don't know any better or because we're a bit fed up with having to say we speak Portuguese/English".
When said by Brits/Portuguese the expression reflects a way to denote the different language variation; the way it is used can range from merely informational to a kind of scorn, but it means "We are calling it Brazilian/American to explicitly say that the spelling and vocabulary betrays a New World origin, which might or might not be something some of you care about. Also, despite being somewhat eclipsed in terms of international projection we can always take solace in saying that we speak the pure, unadulterated language variations, even if that's not really something that can be judged".
That's your point of view, my opinion is that the noteworty differences between are just pronounciation and regional vocabulary.
Well, of course it is my point of view... everything I say it's my point of view:)
However, not everything in the world is just dependent on specific point of views: I can be right or wrong, and regardless of points of view there are ways to ascertain the truth. While not as linear as doing the same in math, a POV of "2+2=343" is wrong, and no amount of respect for different opinions can change that.
Bear in mind though that I'm not saying that this is so clear cut, merely that points of view do not exist in equal standing regardless of support. You're entitled to you PV, and maybe you're right... since there is little to gain from Internet debates I'll merely present my arguments.
The formal language (written in respectable magazines, etc) is almost identical, but it does not reflect the colloquial language at all. And I'm not talking about slum broken dialects.
Ahh, yes, the theory of "diglossia" applied to Brazil, where the colloquial language is entirely different from the written one and constitutes another reality altogether (!). This theory is more a reflection of the need to create a separate linguistic identity then anything else, and has found little to no support in actual linguistics - just ask the Academia Brasileira de Letras. It also has a socio-political implication, which is subtle but there: the implication that Brazilians just can't "speak proper Portuguese", hence the diglossia, where written and spoken "real" Portuguese is something for the rich, European-descent elites, while the rest just uses some "easier" and "uncultured" variation.
This last part is my opinion, not fact, but arranted IMO. What *is* fact is that people that defend diglossia somehow recognise that the written language is the same, but somehow Brazilians speak a different language altogether...only to be understood by other Portuguese speakers, who I suppose must have learned this "different" language by other means.
That language you read from news sites does not exist as a spoken language.
Er... and this is news *where in the world*? Do you think that West Ham inhabitants (Oi!) speak like "The Times" is written? Do you know the differences between a Liverpudlian, a Manc an a Cockney in terms of vocabulary, slang and pronunciation? I'm talking about a single country here, and the differences are at least as large - if not larger - than the ones between most Portuguese variants.
The idea that Brazilian Portuguese is somehow alone in this kind of things can only exist due to, no offense, lack of concrete knowledge about every other language. *Of course* Brazilian Portuguese is different when written and spoken - every language in the world is!
It's foreign enough for portuguese people to speak about "contamination" of Portuguese by the so-called Brazilian language (due to those shows).
That's an entirely different topic altogether, and I'll be the first one to raise up and support the opposition to those so-called contaminations. Just as you don't the the English cheering and clapping when they see US-only expressions being adopted into British English due to the US cultural and economical power (which in a way mirrors the difference in influence/size that also exists between Brazil and Portugal, and also the natural conservatism from the "original" speakers). If you want we can debate that, but that is another subject not directly related to the one at hand.
You can see that reaction even from respectable portuguese TV programs.
Well, I can see your reaction in/., so I guess we're tied. Again, this is a different subject: I'm *against* importation of many of the Brazilian words that raise concern. This doesn't mean that suddenly Brazilians speak a different language.
That's exactly the same as the difference between American English and British English. Actually, in a purely morphological way, it's *less* than the difference between American English and British English.
The structural and pronunciation differences are enough to be functionally incompatible, unless you are almost fluent.
It never ceases to amaze me why people think that the Portuguese situation is somehow "different" from the myriads of different English, French and Spanish variations. The structural differences are actually almost non existing (assuming we are talking about the regular, cultured versions of the languages, since I somehow get the impression that many people think that everyone in Brazil speaks the language as spoken in the favelas by the unfortunately barely literate low-class inhabitants) and the pronunciation differences vary greatly within Brazil itself (and Portugal: people from S. Miguel Island speak Portuguese, and are often subtitled due to the deep regional accent).
The situation is such that often multilingual instructions booklets come with both variants.
The same happens for every other pluri-continental language: booklets are generally made to specific markets, and the representatives of each market send a translation. I have booklets with different sections for DE (DE), DE (CH) and DE (AT).
Anyway, this is moot: give me a online newspaper article from Brazil that reflects those differences, so great that they need to be duplicated. I never found any, but I'm open to be surprised, and I would be vrey surprised if you could come up with anything, from any literate source, that has anything more that slight spelling differences and some regional preferences in terms of construction and used vocabulary.
In Portugal it's very common for people to refer to Brazilian Portuguese as "Brazilian" instead (like a foreign language).
Exactly like the Brits use "American", more as a differentiator and sometimes as a "we-are-the-ones-that-speak-the-original-one" kind of remark, used to specify quickly that the pronunciation or spelling are from Brazil. You're however not considering the fact that most prime-time television in Portugal is actually spoken in the Brazilian variant (novelas), which would be kind of strange if it was considered a "foreign" language. You could argue that the reverse isn't true - which is true - which would actually mirror the experiences of every other European language: the "original" speakers tend to pick up the New World variations a lot better than the opposite, mainly due to the fact that they are a lot more "closed" in terms of used sounds.
Bear in mind that I have absolutely nothing against the whole of Brazil deciding what they should speak,how they should write and how to call the language. But the "oh, it's very different!" statement has no actual basis - at least for now - and in general portraits an erroneous picture of the actual situation to those who don't know the language.
I understand what you're saying, but there are some points that I would like o comment; all these points are just a curiosity and they don't affect the one very important point you made: it's *your* code and *you do what you want with it*, including choosing the licence that you think better fits you. If it's a free software licence, all the better.
To the points:
-Corporation-friendly BSD vs. Communistic GPL: as someone else already said all the successful free software commercial products I remember are GPL. Asid from this you are not considering one important point: corporations vastly prefer the GPL when it's their turn to *release* the code, since they won't give a competitive advantage to their rivals by virtue of the need of sharing the changes. They *do* prefer BSD code when it's code made by others, of course.
-It's their code: people - and corporations - are free *not* tu use GPL code,or BSD code, or whatever. Just because the licence allows for vastly greater uses then proprietary software doesn't mean that the wishes of the people who chose a specific language should suddenly stop counting because the code "was just there and we needed it". Anyone who doesn't want to feel limited by the terms of the GPL is free to use something else, just like someone who doesn't want to feel limited by the BSD licence terms shouldn't use it. I mention this because I remember that recently many in the BSD community were suddenly quite vocal about the usage of their code in GPL'ed projects, and I witnessed many right in on/. drooling in ecstasy by the prospect of BSD code not being usable in GPL'ed projects.
- My software is free software: as I said, even the ISC licence has restrictions. As such, anyone who wants the supposedly better "real freedom" should just put the code in the Public Domain. Since I know no OS that promotes such a usage I guess that some liberties are better than others.
- GPLv3 criticism is generally done by those who also disliked the GPLv2: this is not directly related to your comment but it's something that crops in this kind of discussions; suddenly the GPLv3 is attacked because of stuff that was already part of the GPLv2. This reinforces the idea that *in general* the GPLv3 closes the holes that some had found in the GPLv2. I said in general because others simply dislike the new terms of the GPLv3 while agreeing with the ones in the GPLv2.
Of course, I'm also an interested party and so a bit more that slightly biased, quite true.
In any event there *are* companies that would probably avoid the GPLv3 for the reasons you mentioned, I was just pointing out that RedHat is not one of them - partially because of their business model I suppose.
The "political statement" part and the "didn't want to be a part of it" are however conspiracy theories - or more likely a reflection of your own views, given your username - that seem to forget that RedHat welcomed the GPLv3 and contributed to the process:
Which means that they'll use both and see no problem in either - just like the vast majority of projects and developers that like the GPL in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing to keep in mind is that the EU has some "interesting" side-effects that make thing a bit more complex; I don't know the details and I might be wrong but I've read some time ago that there is a EU-wide directive that makes it compulsory for a country to deport one of its own citizens to another country if they broke a law there.
The last example I hear was about a Danish national who was deported to Germany because of his involvement in a "nazi" music label, and that carries a prison term in Germany even if it isn't illegal in Denmark.
Problem being that since they are "nazis" anyone complaining is immediately shut down with "Don't tell me *you* are a Nazi!" - kind of like the Internet and kiddie porn.
Again, not sure on how this works, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Androbuntu? Like, Ubuntu but for real men? Now that's probably an untapped market (although there is Debian).
That is needed in order to continue to use the "Mac" vs. "PC" thing that they've got going, now that Macs *are* PCs. Since this sort of removes part of the glamour even slashdot editorials adopt a "PC == Wintel" vocabulary, even though a "PC" with Linux or BSD has exactly the same difference than a "PC" with OSX.
/. actually had people who used free unices.
I still remember when
That resemblance you mention is more likely due to the shared origins of native Britons and Iberians than any Roman conquest. This is well known due to the R1b Y haplogorup distribution that reaches the highest percentages in Iberia and the British Isles (and especially in Ireland).
See this reference for some further info, although the information in there is rather speculative.
I think that the GPL actually always had that advantage over non-copyleft licences: while it doesn't stop a competitor from taking the code it pretty much guarantees that any "competitive advantage" that arises is smoothed out since they must make that available. This makes it somewhat preferable for a company that wants to release some in-house developed code ans is concerned about that angle.
I've read the RPL briefly, and it seems that the main difference is that it requires that everything related to the code must be distributed (scripts, auxiliary programs not directly related with the program, etc), which is a bit to much IMO since it becomes very unclear what must and must not be shared - but perhaps I'm not reading it with the necessary attention
Really? I personally think that one of the few advantages that Symphony has over OO is the menu layout and user interface.
.ods is and what the user needs to install to open it. This by itself if valuable for me.
Plus, likings or dislikings apart, I think that there is one main advantage in Notes8 and Symphony that is for me more important: regardless of the user interface it makes it possible to send and receive ODF documents in an entreprise setting *without* having to send an email explaining what that
. Ubuntu is kicking their ass in the server room
Referring to the two PCs in your basement as a "server room" is a bit extreme, but to each his own I suppose.
And no, it is not that Ubuntu is "bad", just that *presently* it isn't a contender: people who install servers typically prefer Debian, businesses that need support RHEL and SuSE (on which most applications are certified).
This "Ubuntu is winning everywhere!" kind of remind me the Gentoo frenzy some years ago. It's natural, but as all distribution wars can have an overall negative impact on actual Linux adoption (since sometimes advocates will be against a certain distribution "in the server room" and will provide most of the arguments that will be used to install Windows).
Right, let me first address your direct question:
To lose body-fat and gain muscle mass you will most likely need to cycle between the two objectives; food is of paramount importance here, without going into much detail to gain muscle you need to actually (image that) eat more than you waste, and to lose fat the opposite. The amount and type of exercise you do, plus your diet, is what determines if you gain a lot of muscle and just a bit of fat or the opposite.
As for exercise routines, I would recommend heading to bodybuilding.com. Yes, I know, sounds like something you don't want to do but these guys tend to be the ones who actually know about these stuff, more so than the "fitness" crowd. Even if your objective is "merely" to become more agile, with less fat and "harder" and not a gigantic mammal with muscles coming out of your ears that site has lots of routines and explanations; think of them as the Debian or BSD crowd: even when people just want a pretty desktop they are generally the crowd who has the answer to the questions.
Just to complement, that site as lots of routines to do without any fancy equipment. You might invest in some dumbbells though, there is little you can't do with dumbbells, a bench and good posture.
This brings me to the second part of my answer, which is that is generally easier and better to pay membership in a gym, regardless of initial feelings of inadequacy. They have the right equipment, other facilities that are nice to have (think sauna) and it's not like they are a social club where you actually have to talk with people. You could even by surprised to start talking with people from very different walks of life and getting along just fine. There is a self-promoted ghetto thing in the "ahh we're geeks and nobody understands us" mantra.
On top of this I know that I'm personally much more prone to actually do stuff in the gym than at home, maybe because I'm paying for it. Regardless of motivation I do think it is something you should consider, even if you don't care for the classes (I mostly don't) the weight-lifting equipment alone is important for a good routine.
HTH.
2 years ago, sure. Nowadays, I don't think so, quite a shift in demographics IMO, or perhaps a change in concerns (probably both).
I have the feeling that the amount of stories about privacy, Apple, politics and "social sites"/"blogs"/other similar stuff has increased a lot.
The protest is using the channels that Apple has made available to raise their awareness on the DRM issue. The "Genius" are there to answer technical questions, and while I believe that everyone should be polite and civil I can perfectly understand the usage of this channel to convey the concerns.
Inconvenience to Apple users is likely unavoidable and is something that is unfortunate. However this is true for many different kinds of protests; what I mean by these is that inconvenience to others isn't by itself reason enough stop doing protests.
As for the spam analogy, I don't agree. The questions are technology related, and the Genius are there to answer technology-related questions. Granted that this isn't what they probably expect, but it is not like they are going to ask them about the stock-market of the fishing industry.
Oh come on. If they arranged a DOS of Hotmail most people would agree they need to be prosecuted. How is this different?
I'm not sure what is the similarity. *If* the DBD crowd said something like "let's write to badmofo@hotmail.com to express our views on the issue" would that be a DOS? When some years ago a movement was created to coordinate the asking of MS Windows refunds for OEM purchases, is that also a DOS?
Again, it seems to me that this is only a issue because it is Apple. The DBD website has some specific questions to ask Apple, and I have yet to see them tackled by those who dismiss the action (and I have said that personally I'm not sure on the appropriateness of the method chosen). What I have read in this threads was a FSF guy answering that this follows lack of will from Apple to talk about this issues at a higher level.
Just because you dislike Apple
Why does it seem evident? Why must I like or dislike Apple any more or less than I dislike Dell or HP? The only difference is that for most Apple supporters any kind of disagreement with Apple is some sort of grave offence only explained with some supposed hate for their brand. Apple to me is nothing more and nothing less than a logo on a piece of plastic, and the thing that matters to me is their policy on DRM and others.
I would find it funny if they did this to Microsoft sure,
Here you have it then. I don't like or dislike Apple any more or less than I like or dislike Microsoft. Actually I'm lying - in general I think that Microsoft always was a bigger danger, and as such it has been the target of *countless* campaigns, from the FSF and others. It seems however that when complaining about Apple suddenly it's a matter of "hate" and other rules apply.
If the FSF thinks that all software should be free then they are morons
That's what the FSF *has always said*, and if anything they are quite vocal about it. I find it interesting that Apple users feel so threatened by that, it's not like they are not using a proprietary operating system. This situation however is solely about DRM - the DRM that smells bad when made by others but suddenly smells like roses when used and propagated by Apple.
This isn't just a "not great" strategy, it is going to waste a lot of people's time.
There are a lot of things in life that waste peoples time. Like trying to get the MS Windows reimbursement when it is bundled. The sheer amount of hours that it takes means that some other poor users have to wait in queue to get support. Does this mean that I should just pay and shut up? I don't think so. Sometimes it is not only inevitable to be inconvenient, it's necessary.
and I'm sorry if you somehow feel your self worth should be lower because you don't have a Mac
I get the humour, although I must say that 1) I have a MacBook in the household and 2) I find it almost comical the projection that Apple users make about "self-worth", like anybody but them actually cares about their brand. Actually, it's part of the lack of substance that I've seen in this threads: no answer to the actual points and questions addressed to the "Genius" about DRM, just a lot of posturing about "self-worth". I must confess that Apple in itself - and Apple users - are indifferent to me... one is a brand, the others are users of proprietary UNIX OS. Nothing more, nothing less.
I do however like that my system has a lot of the security benefits of a Linux based system
That's great. Use it then. The discussion never was about why people like OSX. Windows users have just as valid reasons to use is, as do Linux and BSD users. Nothing new, nothing different. I certainly have nothing against it - it seems like a decent OS to use, but my opinion is irrelevant.
It looks to me however that Apple users like to think of themselves as something other than users of a specific proprietary OS and get nervous when confronted with the fact Apple *is* using and propagating DRM. If, as you said, there is nothing wrong with it, I don't get the defensiveness and lack of addressing of the actual complaints and the side-tracking of the debate to how great OSX is and how Apple has the right to do foo and bar (Apple users in general talk a lot about the rights that Apple has, including being great defenders of EULAs and the like).
Listen, I understand that. I'm not trying to be excessively confrontational or anything, and I'm partial to this since I directly and indirectly support the FSF. But at least concede that doing *anything* that is even *mildly* against Apple is always something that will face *extreme* objections from Apple users, regardless of the merit of the complaint.
As for influencing, well, for the FSF there is little difference between people buying Apple or Microsoft. Sure, one is UNIX and has more contributions to free and open-source projects, but the FSF is not known from being an organisation that settles for "partly good enough" standards. As such this is no different from the other DRM campaigns targeted at other companies.
Again, I'm not personally convinced this is a great strategy, but the objections I've seen reek of "this is Apple, how dare they!" syndrome.
Right on brother. The sheer amount of sell-outs in here is nauseating, I think I actually prefer the MS supporters.
You're projecting. "Everybody" != Apple "users". While I can see some decent arguments made over this they are clouded by the feeling that Apple users have first and foremost an allegiance to anything that Apple does since most of them bought a one-way ticket to self-worth with their MacBook.
You're downmodded, since /. nowadays is inhabited more by Apple and Windows users than anything else, but you're right. While I can see some decent arguments against the campaign all that I've read so far reeks of "oh they made a move against my Apple, I'll pretend I give a fuck about the FSF to express my contempt about anyone who makes a move against them since I value my iPhone over anything else".
Bloody sold-out retards. I'm beginning to miss the "BSD zealots", at least their hear is in the right place.
"Lean", "mean", "power user", "guerilla OS", damn. There is something rather sad is the attempt to make Windows sound like something interesting, something "rad".
I guess it's a form of self-justification. Some people can't take the hit of using Linux on their daily lives, and that is perfectly understandable all things considered, but trying to make it "it is just as elite!" is depressing to watch, like the guy who bought the mini-van because of the space but feels the need to justify to others that the mini-van is truly a racing vehicle.
Hi,
I somewhat agree with some of your comments - I have answered something similar to some other comments in this thread - and would like to make some further comments:
Brazilians tend to have a hard time understanding European Portuguese, because they don't get to hear a lot of it.
Agreed, the situation is indeed asymmetrical. The same - less pronounced, surely - can be seen in the American English and British English situation: see here for a purely anecdotal reference.
I am however aware of some supporting arguments in your favour: in recent years several Portuguese actors have participated in Brazilian soaps and they must avoid speaking quickly or they wouldn't be understood. As you said familiarity plays a key role in this.
Both of these examples definitely have to do with the fact that Brazil and France have bigger populations and more cultural impact than Portugal and Quebec; Paris is the center of the French-speaking world, and while Brazil can't claim to be the center of the Portuguese-speaking world, it has an order of magnitude more lusophones than Portugal. There's no such situation for English and Spanish; none of the urban dialects is isolated from any others.
Yes, I mentioned that in some other comment, the fact that Brazil is politically unified and huge has created a different situation - a different power relation, if you will - than the one that exists with French, for example. You however are the one understating the existing different variation in both English and Spanish: several English variations are hard for many English themselves to understand, let alone Americans. Someone from Santa Catarina and someone from Bahia will also speak very different Brazilian Portuguese, and the mutual intelligibility will depend on the amount of familiarity they have.
Structural similarities (which you overstate; the phonology of European and Brazilian Portuguese is substantially different)
Again, no more substantial than the differences between a Texan and a Scouser, or a New Yorker and a Londoner. Language evolution makes that something unavoidable in languages that span continents, and the fact remains that regardless of power relations and lack of familiarity the language is the same. As for structural similarity, it is not an overstatement since it is an integral part of what defines a language, even if it doesn't guarantee mutual spoken understanding when strong regional variations are considered.
You can quite easily fail to understand a language or dialect that's extremely similar to yours if you have very little exposure to it. Where the similarity helps is that you can pick it up in weeks instead of years.
Well, I agree with that. I must however say that I've both been to Brazil and interacted with my fair share of Brazilians in Portugal, and always found the supposed lack of mutual intelligibility more of a fashion statement than anything else. This is purely my experience though, and largely based in interactions with middle-class speakers. I've also worked directly with Americans and British, and seen that mutual intelligibility between English speakers is also something that shouldn't be taken as always easy and guaranteed - probably true for any language in different degrees.
Sorry, that's one hella messy sentence that I can't follow. I'll reiterate one of my examples from above: the French in general don't understand Quebecois (nevermind Cajun), but the Quebecois understand the French.
Sorry about that, I tend to write in one breath which is something prone to create those ghastly sentences, especially when not writing in my native language. What I meant to say is that the two languages I know best - Portuguese and English - tend to be more "muted", with more "closed" vowel sounds that tend to make them harder to learn and understand than the New World variations. I know for sure th
Hello,
I must say that I'm only mildy familiar with the Spanish situation, and let me thank you for your very informational answer.
I was not speaking about formal adoption of the language variations - since most European language Academies tend to be highly impermeable to New World influences - but in terms of mutual comprehension; maybe Spanish is different,and the example you gave is enough to convince me of that. That can probably be related to one important detail: English and Portuguese have a single, almost continental-sized block of speakers in the Americas with a lot of international projection and politically unified, and so I suppose that both American English and Brazilian Portuguese tends to be familiar to Brits and Portuguese...maybe the political division of Spanish American has prevented this when Spanish is concerned.
Just a theory, probably a bad one.
Wait, what? Last I checked the British really enjoy making fun of Americans for referring to American English as American.
:)... see TheRaven64 reply, but it reflects the same thing when speaking about Portuguese and Brazilians: when someone from Brazil says they speak "Brazilian" (similar to a US citizen saying that they speak "American") they are not in general using it as way to differentiate between different language variations but as an absolute statement: "Yes, we do truly believe we speak a language called Brazilian/American, wither because we truely don't know any better or because we're a bit fed up with having to say we speak Portuguese/English".
:)
Well, yes, when Americans do it is seems silly, but when Brits do it it's different
When said by Brits/Portuguese the expression reflects a way to denote the different language variation; the way it is used can range from merely informational to a kind of scorn, but it means "We are calling it Brazilian/American to explicitly say that the spelling and vocabulary betrays a New World origin, which might or might not be something some of you care about. Also, despite being somewhat eclipsed in terms of international projection we can always take solace in saying that we speak the pure, unadulterated language variations, even if that's not really something that can be judged".
Sic transit gloria mundi
That's your point of view, my opinion is that the noteworty differences between are just pronounciation and regional vocabulary.
:)
/., so I guess we're tied. Again, this is a different subject: I'm *against* importation of many of the Brazilian words that raise concern. This doesn't mean that suddenly Brazilians speak a different language.
Well, of course it is my point of view... everything I say it's my point of view
However, not everything in the world is just dependent on specific point of views: I can be right or wrong, and regardless of points of view there are ways to ascertain the truth. While not as linear as doing the same in math, a POV of "2+2=343" is wrong, and no amount of respect for different opinions can change that.
Bear in mind though that I'm not saying that this is so clear cut, merely that points of view do not exist in equal standing regardless of support. You're entitled to you PV, and maybe you're right... since there is little to gain from Internet debates I'll merely present my arguments.
The formal language (written in respectable magazines, etc) is almost identical, but it does not reflect the colloquial language at all. And I'm not talking about slum broken dialects.
Ahh, yes, the theory of "diglossia" applied to Brazil, where the colloquial language is entirely different from the written one and constitutes another reality altogether (!). This theory is more a reflection of the need to create a separate linguistic identity then anything else, and has found little to no support in actual linguistics - just ask the Academia Brasileira de Letras. It also has a socio-political implication, which is subtle but there: the implication that Brazilians just can't "speak proper Portuguese", hence the diglossia, where written and spoken "real" Portuguese is something for the rich, European-descent elites, while the rest just uses some "easier" and "uncultured" variation.
This last part is my opinion, not fact, but arranted IMO. What *is* fact is that people that defend diglossia somehow recognise that the written language is the same, but somehow Brazilians speak a different language altogether...only to be understood by other Portuguese speakers, who I suppose must have learned this "different" language by other means.
That language you read from news sites does not exist as a spoken language.
Er... and this is news *where in the world*? Do you think that West Ham inhabitants (Oi!) speak like "The Times" is written? Do you know the differences between a Liverpudlian, a Manc an a Cockney in terms of vocabulary, slang and pronunciation? I'm talking about a single country here, and the differences are at least as large - if not larger - than the ones between most Portuguese variants.
The idea that Brazilian Portuguese is somehow alone in this kind of things can only exist due to, no offense, lack of concrete knowledge about every other language. *Of course* Brazilian Portuguese is different when written and spoken - every language in the world is!
It's foreign enough for portuguese people to speak about "contamination" of Portuguese by the so-called Brazilian language (due to those shows).
That's an entirely different topic altogether, and I'll be the first one to raise up and support the opposition to those so-called contaminations. Just as you don't the the English cheering and clapping when they see US-only expressions being adopted into British English due to the US cultural and economical power (which in a way mirrors the difference in influence/size that also exists between Brazil and Portugal, and also the natural conservatism from the "original" speakers). If you want we can debate that, but that is another subject not directly related to the one at hand.
You can see that reaction even from respectable portuguese TV programs.
Well, I can see your reaction in
Once I even
That's exactly the same as the difference between American English and British English. Actually, in a purely morphological way, it's *less* than the difference between American English and British English.
The structural and pronunciation differences are enough to be functionally incompatible, unless you are almost fluent.
It never ceases to amaze me why people think that the Portuguese situation is somehow "different" from the myriads of different English, French and Spanish variations. The structural differences are actually almost non existing (assuming we are talking about the regular, cultured versions of the languages, since I somehow get the impression that many people think that everyone in Brazil speaks the language as spoken in the favelas by the unfortunately barely literate low-class inhabitants) and the pronunciation differences vary greatly within Brazil itself (and Portugal: people from S. Miguel Island speak Portuguese, and are often subtitled due to the deep regional accent).
The situation is such that often multilingual instructions booklets come with both variants.
The same happens for every other pluri-continental language: booklets are generally made to specific markets, and the representatives of each market send a translation. I have booklets with different sections for DE (DE), DE (CH) and DE (AT).
Anyway, this is moot: give me a online newspaper article from Brazil that reflects those differences, so great that they need to be duplicated. I never found any, but I'm open to be surprised, and I would be vrey surprised if you could come up with anything, from any literate source, that has anything more that slight spelling differences and some regional preferences in terms of construction and used vocabulary.
In Portugal it's very common for people to refer to Brazilian Portuguese as "Brazilian" instead (like a foreign language).
Exactly like the Brits use "American", more as a differentiator and sometimes as a "we-are-the-ones-that-speak-the-original-one" kind of remark, used to specify quickly that the pronunciation or spelling are from Brazil. You're however not considering the fact that most prime-time television in Portugal is actually spoken in the Brazilian variant (novelas), which would be kind of strange if it was considered a "foreign" language. You could argue that the reverse isn't true - which is true - which would actually mirror the experiences of every other European language: the "original" speakers tend to pick up the New World variations a lot better than the opposite, mainly due to the fact that they are a lot more "closed" in terms of used sounds.
Bear in mind that I have absolutely nothing against the whole of Brazil deciding what they should speak,how they should write and how to call the language. But the "oh, it's very different!" statement has no actual basis - at least for now - and in general portraits an erroneous picture of the actual situation to those who don't know the language.
I understand what you're saying, but there are some points that I would like o comment; all these points are just a curiosity and they don't affect the one very important point you made: it's *your* code and *you do what you want with it*, including choosing the licence that you think better fits you. If it's a free software licence, all the better.
/. drooling in ecstasy by the prospect of BSD code not being usable in GPL'ed projects.
To the points:
-Corporation-friendly BSD vs. Communistic GPL: as someone else already said all the successful free software commercial products I remember are GPL. Asid from this you are not considering one important point: corporations vastly prefer the GPL when it's their turn to *release* the code, since they won't give a competitive advantage to their rivals by virtue of the need of sharing the changes. They *do* prefer BSD code when it's code made by others, of course.
-It's their code: people - and corporations - are free *not* tu use GPL code,or BSD code, or whatever. Just because the licence allows for vastly greater uses then proprietary software doesn't mean that the wishes of the people who chose a specific language should suddenly stop counting because the code "was just there and we needed it". Anyone who doesn't want to feel limited by the terms of the GPL is free to use something else, just like someone who doesn't want to feel limited by the BSD licence terms shouldn't use it. I mention this because I remember that recently many in the BSD community were suddenly quite vocal about the usage of their code in GPL'ed projects, and I witnessed many right in on
- My software is free software: as I said, even the ISC licence has restrictions. As such, anyone who wants the supposedly better "real freedom" should just put the code in the Public Domain. Since I know no OS that promotes such a usage I guess that some liberties are better than others.
- GPLv3 criticism is generally done by those who also disliked the GPLv2: this is not directly related to your comment but it's something that crops in this kind of discussions; suddenly the GPLv3 is attacked because of stuff that was already part of the GPLv2. This reinforces the idea that *in general* the GPLv3 closes the holes that some had found in the GPLv2. I said in general because others simply dislike the new terms of the GPLv3 while agreeing with the ones in the GPLv2.
Of course, I'm also an interested party and so a bit more that slightly biased, quite true.
In any event there *are* companies that would probably avoid the GPLv3 for the reasons you mentioned, I was just pointing out that RedHat is not one of them - partially because of their business model I suppose.
Because they felt like it is a good answer.
The "political statement" part and the "didn't want to be a part of it" are however conspiracy theories - or more likely a reflection of your own views, given your username - that seem to forget that RedHat welcomed the GPLv3 and contributed to the process:
We want to congratulate the Free Software Foundation, the Software Freedom Law Center, and the many companies and individuals, who have all worked so diligently, for their efforts in developing version 3 of the GNU General Public License. Their work is to be commended. Red Hat believes our end user customers will benefit from several of the new provisions in GPLv3, including the patent license provisions. Red Hat will continue to contribute to projects that migrate from GPLv2 or other licenses to GPLv3, and we will look to include GPLv3-licensed projects in our future distributions. GPLv3 will also be added to the list of approved open source licenses under Red Hatâ(TM)s Patent Promise.
Which means that they'll use both and see no problem in either - just like the vast majority of projects and developers that like the GPL in the first place.