When you're on a 36-48 month depreciation schedule, the idea is they last that long. When you're a 15 year old kid, you need the $499.00 BoxPusher 100 - that you will replace in 18-24 months with another throwaway piece of shit.
Yup, your top of the line laptop with a 48 month depreciation schedule will absolutely last that long. For the last 12 months, however, you'll be using a well-built machine that's slower than an entry-level laptop.
Think about what you would have bought 2 years in Aug 2009 ago in the mobile space: hint Arrandale wasn't released until Jan 2010 so you were stuck with Penryn. Meanwhile now I can buy a Sandy Bridge i3 that will absolutely cream any Penryn for $500 and you will be stuck with that Penryn for another 2 years.
Of course, moving to a 36 month depreciation cycle (and then attendant 3/4 cost decrease) is a step in the right direction. Now you have a slightly slower Penryn you bought in August 2009 and you still have to deal with a sub-entry-level machine for another whole year before you can buy a new one.
My analysis suggests that 24 months is better than 36/48 and that you can swallow the early breakage costs.
That means when you carry it around every day, it won't fall apart as fast. It WILL fall apart eventually - that's always been my experience with laptops in general - but the Latitude will reliably outlast the consumer class Vostro by a great amount.
Yes, but with the savings from the Vostro you can buy a new mid-range laptop when the current one breaks for the same per-time costs rather than being stuck with a well-built but dated machine for long enough to justify it's increased purchase price. Given how fast computer hardware accelerates, it makes more sense to replace often rather than sinking lots of money into a fast-depreciating asset. In 2 years, a $1000 laptop will be outspecced by entry level models at $500, so buying one of those twice as often (actually the current-dollars cost of a $500 laptop in 2 years is $470) makes tons more sense in a dollar/performance sense than buying the $1k model and holding on to it for 4 years.
Of course, for the average consumer breakage means a trip to newegg or amazon and a few days waiting for a new device while a suit on a business trip to kerbleckistan has different needs.
Note that this wasn't with thermal cameras. Flying a plane or helicopter, where it would be legal to do so, is not a search and hence does not require a warrant.
The key element in Kyllo (and the element to which I was responding) is the use of thermal cameras that look inside a private dwelling and hence requires a warrant.
Actually, they're not using 'secret' lists anymore. They're just going after people because they have been granted the authority to do so. I live about 100 miles from a US border (within the 200 mile from any border that the DHS has been granted full authority) and even though it was promised to only be used for external threats, recently the US Border Patrol in conjunction with local police recently used heat seeking drones to find pot plantations in the area and made arrests.
Citation needed, especially because the Supreme Court put the kibosh on those searches almost a decade ago in Kyllo v. United States. I know plenty of lawyers that would easily take such a case pro-bono because it's an easy win and a nice chunk of attorney's fees too.
If you are allowed to distribute the linked library with the program is another matter (the GPL prohibits it, the LGPL allows it).
So distributing the Linux Kernel alongside any non-GPL-compatibly-licensed, such as Ubuntu One, which is closed source, is prohibited? Obviously Ubuntu One links to the kernel and uses the various userland kernel APIs to do its work, it could not operate without the kernel at all.
Even establishing all that, I don't think that makes sense to call it a derivative work. As I see it, a CD with Ubuntu and Ubuntu One on it is not a derivative work of the kernel or Ubuntu One but they remain as two separate works that inter-operate according to a fix interface (in this case, the kernel's API).
again, you're completely ignorant of the situation surrounding the actual makeup of the android source code. the core android OS which was released BY GOOGLE is completely apache2 source code. it runs on top of a modified Linux Kernel, which has had patches made to it to add in, apart from anything else, the android security model. for more info see the post i made here: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2380756&op=Reply&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=37100038 [slashdot.org]
bob, you really really need to get better informed about the GPL before making random comments like the ones you've just made, ok?
You will not that they haven't released the source for Android 3.X under any license, Apache or otherwise. It does run on top of a modified Linux kernel, the patches to which have been published. The question is whether they can distribute Android 3.X that runs on top of Linux without it being a derivative work.
And I think I understand the GPL just about as well as it can be understood given the ambiguity and lack of caselaw regarding derivative works.
But what happens if you merely copy an original program as a component in your own, perhaps larger, work? Does it make a difference that you didn't actually modify the source code to combine the original program into your larger work?
Does merely linking to a program without any change to the original source code create a derivative work of that program? Almost every program links to library routines. Surely, one doesn't create a derivative work of a library simply by calling a sqrt function in the library. Why should it be any different when you link to something as complex as an enterprise server or database engine? What about linking from a software program, such as when linking your device driver into a GPL- or OSL-licensed program like Linux?
~Larry Rosen, general counsel for the Open Source Initiative
For ages the GPL community has been rightfully baffled by the problem of defining what constitutes a derivative work that triggers the GPL. Copyright law itself isn't entirely clear on the matter, nor is making a binary distinction (derivative/not) particularly easily when there is a continuum of derivative-ness. FM seems to be absolutely certain that Android is a derivative work of the Linux Kernel. I'm not so sure, given that it runs entirely in userspace and access the kernel through well-defined interfaces (and that modifications to the kernel are posted promptly and under the GPL).
This comes up often enough in the context of binary modules for the linux kernel, ala NVIDIA. Their untested claim is that the module itself is not a derived work of the kernel and does not become so simply because it is designed to be dynamically loaded by insmod. Another frequent example is when someone writes a nice UI for a FOSS project, ala the Calibre dustup from earlier this week. This is only getting worse as more projects adopt the base+plugin module where it's nto clear if a plugin is a derived work subject to the GPL or not.
Certainly we can say that dynamically linking to a GPL library or project or calling a GPL utility with input and gathering the output are themselves not enough to mean that the work is derived. Otherwise every shell script that piped to 'cut' or 'tail' or 'awk' would be a derived work of the coreutils project, something we obviously reject in practice. Using 'tail' is not the same as making a work that's derivative of tail in the same way that writing code in Python isn't a derivative work of the Python language or implementation.
Conversely, calling a GPL utility or library, while not enough itself, certainly raises red flags about whether the project is so deeply entwined with the utility/library that it has become a derivative work. This judgment is necessarily one of degree -- a GTK app that uses the library's public API to draw windows and widgets is not as derivative as one that hooks into the GTK callback system and overrides some of the internal behavior.
Where does this leave us with Android? I'm inclined to think that it's a regular userspace application that is not a derivative work of the kernel even though it runs on that kernel but that's not much an argument as it is a judgment call.
As a private pilot, drones scare the #$%@ out of me. Planes are hard enough to see at over 200mph closing speed.
And as a hobbyist RC/drone guy, private pilots that think they have the rights to the sky just because they got there first annoy the *** out of me. I place them in credibility right next to those guys at the turn of the century that tried to ban cars from the road because they spooked the horses.
Drones and planes can coexist under some reasonable rules. I stay under 500' and way away from airports and their approaches. I'd even throw and ADS-B on my drone if the hardware was made light enough. Most of the nasty anti-cooperation foot-stomping isn't come from hobbyists, its coming from pilots with a serious entitlement complex and a childish attitude about making small concessions to those that want to share the air.
Are you doing it for commercial purposes? Did you RTFA? There are regulations against commercial drones.
I did. The reference to the suit knocking on my door was that he might not have the same idea I had about my hobby or might, in general, start making my life a PITA.
I've got a (kit-built, open-source) tricopter that I've fitted with a camera, gps and so is basically a drone (I guess) . I fly it well beyond visual range using the GPS and the cameras as guidance. For now it's all remote control plus some very rudimentary instructions on what to do if connectivity drops suddenly (i.e. climb a bit and fly back towards where you last saw the signal, if that fails, hover, if you are out of battery soon, descend slowly) but a long-term project was going to be to develop and program some basic autonomous behavior.
Now I've got to worry about some suit banging on my door?
That's three clicks too many just to make the fucking menu bar re-appear. It should never have been hidden in the first place. The Firefox "UI designers" fucked that one up big time.
You understand that this is three clicks in the course of forever right?
Your complaint is not "They don't give me a choice how to display the window" but merely "My choice isn't even the default choice!".
So? They are getting extra money. They should be doing extra work.
Are they? Conventional wisdom is that they are just cannibalizing the sales from their console versions. A small fraction of gamers (probably overrepresented on/.) will flat refuse to buy a game that's console only.
Only if he was legally entitled to release that code. Because if he released it and it wasn't his to do so, the GPL license itself is null and void for that project, and standard copyright would apply to that project.
If it was not his right to release that code, not only should he STFU, but he may well bring legal problems on himself, and burn his career in the process.
Or both. You can GPL release the code which gives others the right to distribute it under certain conditions. If you are the copyright holder*, however, you already had the right to distribute the code to begin with. IOW, when a copyright holder releases under the GPL, they still retain for themselves full distribution rights.
* This is almost certainly the company. There are a lot of dickish contract terms regarding ownership of intellectual property created off-the-clock in home projects and all that. This project, however, was created on the clock and so seems quite rightly to be the property of the employer -- a totally different story.
The real question is will the market bear the new regulations?
Or will new regulations making it ever more difficult to keep older cars on the road be introduced to fix the defects in these regulations?
After all, now that new cars are more expensive, people are going to keep the older ones on the road for longer, often with emissions equipment that is functioning at some fraction of intended efficiency. The result might be less gasoline consumption but higher particulate or NOx SOx emissions.
A society's advance is measured by risk reduction, so stuff can be achieved without a large proportion of people being harmed in the process.
But risk reduction comes at a cost in something. You can't just arbitrarily reduce risk without sacrificing something else.
Projecting 'advance' down to a single axis necessarily means you are ignoring the trade-offs. A society in which I wouldn't be allowed to ride my motorcycle might be more 'advanced' by your narrow metric of reducing risk but it would seem very primitive by many other metrics.
Amazon, BackBlaze, etc... have pretty decent services that would allow you to backup to their service and not have to worry about the details. You can TrueCrypt and parity-protect your files before uploading to protect against their service either snooping or corrupting your data. Heck, if you are really paranoid, you could upload to 2 or 3 such services for the same price as rolling your own or even have periodic hashing for consistency.
The only downside I can see here is that you need to have sufficient upload bandwidth (and a compliant ISP) for the volume of data that needs to be backed up. The upsides are manifest: probably cheaper, better tech, not having to worry about implementation details, wasting less of your time managing your creations and more time creating.
This is one of those (rare) cases where offloading to the cloud makes a ton of sense.
So, I'd say hardware support is pretty good on OpenBSD. More importantly, the OS actually does its job and abstracts the hardware so developers don't have to pretend that they're writing DOS applications and ship a different code path for every possible combination of hardware on OpenBSD.
I don't think you are wrong in your experience or conclusion but when people talk about "hardware support" they are not referring to whether it will run on older architectures (Apple hasn't sold a PPC in nearly half a decade). Rather, they are talking about drivers for all the random peripherals they've accumulated -- wireless mice, webcams, joysticks, scanners, wifi cards, bluetooth modules. The number of people frustrated by installing an OS and not having it support no-name bluetooth module XXX or Broadcom wifi module YYY dwarfs those frustrated by the differences in the architecture-abstraction-layer and those running on exotic (read: non-x86) hardware.
That's how you get "no flag pole", and "vegetables are unsuitable" regulations past the court system.
Actually the no-vegetables was the city, not the HOA.
For the homebuyer, it's an agreed to private contract, all dressed up as a feature (which you've bought into apparently).
It's not a feature for me. I have a few old car projects in my driveway and random shit all over the place. My grass is up to my knees. I would never buy into an HOA.
It's a feature for other people, however.
But the fact is, the city/county wouldn't allow the developer to build without them.
If that's what the voters in that city/county want, that's their business. Who am I to tell them they must accept development under whatever terms the developer demands?
They're not "of their own choice" if there isn't a ready choice. If all the homes for sale of a particular kind in a particular area are all HOA, then people who don't want a HOA will end up being in one against their will.
If all the homes for sale are HOA and the people actually want non-HOA houses, the first developer to offer a non-HOA house will make huge bucks. Developers aren't going to leave money on the table like that. You have a problem that you cannot believe others have a different preference than yours -- that people like HOAs (the majority of them, not the vocal minority) and will actually pay more for a house governed by an HOA.
The only illusion here is yours -- thinking that you know better than everyone else what they actually want. I hope that no one takes that attitude with you and what you want (although it would be sort of ironically just).
You mean to say that you don't think other human beings are smart enough to enter into contracts of their own choice when you think those agreements are not a good idea. How you got so smart that you can figure out what they can't is left unclear.
I could see some mandatory disclosures to help people make informed decisions, including having a neutral third-party explain exactly what they are getting into. I know I would never buy into a HOA property. I just can't stand the idea that because I don't like it then others shouldn't be able to chose differently -- it assumes far too much.
The Russians have a fine solution -- just release them immediately, in the middle of the sea, with no fuel. After all, you certainly don't need a trial not to hold someone.
Yeah right. Try taking a banana away from a monkey. Or a bone away from a dog. Animals have a sense of ownership, it just usually doesn't last long because they tend to consume the item.
Funny, I have dogs and when the alpha takes a bone away from another dog, he or she just accepted it. As I understand, the same thing happens with monkeys.
Only humans have the concept that every individual can keep things even when an individual of superior social rank and physical power wants to take it away from them.
At what point does the soldiers responsibility become to defend the Constitution of the United States against *all* enemies, foreign and domestic, even if those enemies are the President and the appointed officers?
When he thinks that he is likely to be vindicated instead of spending 10 years busting bricks in Leavenworth for insubordination. Fun fact, willfully disobeying a lawful order of superior commissioned officer during time of war is punishable by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct:http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm90.htm -- usually the CM settles on Leavenworth (there hasn't been an execution in the US military since the 60s).
Folks on/. are keen on mocking the "I was following orders" defense but forget to include the flip-side of "we will send you to jail for not following orders".
Slashdot Mirror
When you're on a 36-48 month depreciation schedule, the idea is they last that long. When you're a 15 year old kid, you need the $499.00 BoxPusher 100 - that you will replace in 18-24 months with another throwaway piece of shit.
Yup, your top of the line laptop with a 48 month depreciation schedule will absolutely last that long. For the last 12 months, however, you'll be using a well-built machine that's slower than an entry-level laptop.
Think about what you would have bought 2 years in Aug 2009 ago in the mobile space: hint Arrandale wasn't released until Jan 2010 so you were stuck with Penryn. Meanwhile now I can buy a Sandy Bridge i3 that will absolutely cream any Penryn for $500 and you will be stuck with that Penryn for another 2 years.
Of course, moving to a 36 month depreciation cycle (and then attendant 3/4 cost decrease) is a step in the right direction. Now you have a slightly slower Penryn you bought in August 2009 and you still have to deal with a sub-entry-level machine for another whole year before you can buy a new one.
My analysis suggests that 24 months is better than 36/48 and that you can swallow the early breakage costs.
But there's also a cost in moving all your stuff over to the new machine and getting the new one just the way you like it.
It's a shame there are no tools that could copy the entire state a computer into some sort of "image" that could then be written to another computer!
Let me guess, you aren't already making routine backup images of your computers and just waiting for a hard drive head to crush your stuff?
That means when you carry it around every day, it won't fall apart as fast. It WILL fall apart eventually - that's always been my experience with laptops in general - but the Latitude will reliably outlast the consumer class Vostro by a great amount.
Yes, but with the savings from the Vostro you can buy a new mid-range laptop when the current one breaks for the same per-time costs rather than being stuck with a well-built but dated machine for long enough to justify it's increased purchase price. Given how fast computer hardware accelerates, it makes more sense to replace often rather than sinking lots of money into a fast-depreciating asset. In 2 years, a $1000 laptop will be outspecced by entry level models at $500, so buying one of those twice as often (actually the current-dollars cost of a $500 laptop in 2 years is $470) makes tons more sense in a dollar/performance sense than buying the $1k model and holding on to it for 4 years.
Of course, for the average consumer breakage means a trip to newegg or amazon and a few days waiting for a new device while a suit on a business trip to kerbleckistan has different needs.
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/554227/aerial-marijuana-search-leads-to-arrest/ [ynn.com]
Note that this wasn't with thermal cameras. Flying a plane or helicopter, where it would be legal to do so, is not a search and hence does not require a warrant.
The key element in Kyllo (and the element to which I was responding) is the use of thermal cameras that look inside a private dwelling and hence requires a warrant.
Actually, they're not using 'secret' lists anymore. They're just going after people because they have been granted the authority to do so. I live about 100 miles from a US border (within the 200 mile from any border that the DHS has been granted full authority) and even though it was promised to only be used for external threats, recently the US Border Patrol in conjunction with local police recently used heat seeking drones to find pot plantations in the area and made arrests.
Citation needed, especially because the Supreme Court put the kibosh on those searches almost a decade ago in Kyllo v. United States. I know plenty of lawyers that would easily take such a case pro-bono because it's an easy win and a nice chunk of attorney's fees too.
If you are allowed to distribute the linked library with the program is another matter (the GPL prohibits it, the LGPL allows it).
So distributing the Linux Kernel alongside any non-GPL-compatibly-licensed, such as Ubuntu One, which is closed source, is prohibited? Obviously Ubuntu One links to the kernel and uses the various userland kernel APIs to do its work, it could not operate without the kernel at all.
Even establishing all that, I don't think that makes sense to call it a derivative work. As I see it, a CD with Ubuntu and Ubuntu One on it is not a derivative work of the kernel or Ubuntu One but they remain as two separate works that inter-operate according to a fix interface (in this case, the kernel's API).
again, you're completely ignorant of the situation surrounding the actual makeup of the android source code. the core android OS which was released BY GOOGLE is completely apache2 source code. it runs on top of a modified Linux Kernel, which has had patches made to it to add in, apart from anything else, the android security model. for more info see the post i made here: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2380756&op=Reply&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=37100038 [slashdot.org]
bob, you really really need to get better informed about the GPL before making random comments like the ones you've just made, ok?
You will not that they haven't released the source for Android 3.X under any license, Apache or otherwise. It does run on top of a modified Linux kernel, the patches to which have been published. The question is whether they can distribute Android 3.X that runs on top of Linux without it being a derivative work.
And I think I understand the GPL just about as well as it can be understood given the ambiguity and lack of caselaw regarding derivative works.
See, e.g. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366
But what happens if you merely copy an original program as a component in your own, perhaps larger, work? Does it make a difference that you didn't actually modify the source code to combine the original program into your larger work?
Does merely linking to a program without any change to the original source code create a derivative work of that program? Almost every program links to library routines. Surely, one doesn't create a derivative work of a library simply by calling a sqrt function in the library. Why should it be any different when you link to something as complex as an enterprise server or database engine? What about linking from a software program, such as when linking your device driver into a GPL- or OSL-licensed program like Linux?
~Larry Rosen, general counsel for the Open Source Initiative
For ages the GPL community has been rightfully baffled by the problem of defining what constitutes a derivative work that triggers the GPL. Copyright law itself isn't entirely clear on the matter, nor is making a binary distinction (derivative/not) particularly easily when there is a continuum of derivative-ness. FM seems to be absolutely certain that Android is a derivative work of the Linux Kernel. I'm not so sure, given that it runs entirely in userspace and access the kernel through well-defined interfaces (and that modifications to the kernel are posted promptly and under the GPL).
This comes up often enough in the context of binary modules for the linux kernel, ala NVIDIA. Their untested claim is that the module itself is not a derived work of the kernel and does not become so simply because it is designed to be dynamically loaded by insmod. Another frequent example is when someone writes a nice UI for a FOSS project, ala the Calibre dustup from earlier this week. This is only getting worse as more projects adopt the base+plugin module where it's nto clear if a plugin is a derived work subject to the GPL or not.
Certainly we can say that dynamically linking to a GPL library or project or calling a GPL utility with input and gathering the output are themselves not enough to mean that the work is derived. Otherwise every shell script that piped to 'cut' or 'tail' or 'awk' would be a derived work of the coreutils project, something we obviously reject in practice. Using 'tail' is not the same as making a work that's derivative of tail in the same way that writing code in Python isn't a derivative work of the Python language or implementation.
Conversely, calling a GPL utility or library, while not enough itself, certainly raises red flags about whether the project is so deeply entwined with the utility/library that it has become a derivative work. This judgment is necessarily one of degree -- a GTK app that uses the library's public API to draw windows and widgets is not as derivative as one that hooks into the GTK callback system and overrides some of the internal behavior.
Where does this leave us with Android? I'm inclined to think that it's a regular userspace application that is not a derivative work of the kernel even though it runs on that kernel but that's not much an argument as it is a judgment call.
As a private pilot, drones scare the #$%@ out of me. Planes are hard enough to see at over 200mph closing speed.
And as a hobbyist RC/drone guy, private pilots that think they have the rights to the sky just because they got there first annoy the *** out of me. I place them in credibility right next to those guys at the turn of the century that tried to ban cars from the road because they spooked the horses.
Drones and planes can coexist under some reasonable rules. I stay under 500' and way away from airports and their approaches. I'd even throw and ADS-B on my drone if the hardware was made light enough. Most of the nasty anti-cooperation foot-stomping isn't come from hobbyists, its coming from pilots with a serious entitlement complex and a childish attitude about making small concessions to those that want to share the air.
Are you doing it for commercial purposes? Did you RTFA? There are regulations against commercial drones.
I did. The reference to the suit knocking on my door was that he might not have the same idea I had about my hobby or might, in general, start making my life a PITA.
I've got a (kit-built, open-source) tricopter that I've fitted with a camera, gps and so is basically a drone (I guess) . I fly it well beyond visual range using the GPS and the cameras as guidance. For now it's all remote control plus some very rudimentary instructions on what to do if connectivity drops suddenly (i.e. climb a bit and fly back towards where you last saw the signal, if that fails, hover, if you are out of battery soon, descend slowly) but a long-term project was going to be to develop and program some basic autonomous behavior.
Now I've got to worry about some suit banging on my door?
That's three clicks too many just to make the fucking menu bar re-appear. It should never have been hidden in the first place. The Firefox "UI designers" fucked that one up big time.
You understand that this is three clicks in the course of forever right?
Your complaint is not "They don't give me a choice how to display the window" but merely "My choice isn't even the default choice!".
So? They are getting extra money. They should be doing extra work.
Are they? Conventional wisdom is that they are just cannibalizing the sales from their console versions. A small fraction of gamers (probably overrepresented on /.) will flat refuse to buy a game that's console only.
Only if he was legally entitled to release that code.
Because if he released it and it wasn't his to do so, the GPL license itself is null and void for that project, and standard copyright would apply to that project.
If it was not his right to release that code, not only should he STFU, but he may well bring legal problems on himself, and burn his career in the process.
Or both. You can GPL release the code which gives others the right to distribute it under certain conditions. If you are the copyright holder*, however, you already had the right to distribute the code to begin with. IOW, when a copyright holder releases under the GPL, they still retain for themselves full distribution rights.
* This is almost certainly the company. There are a lot of dickish contract terms regarding ownership of intellectual property created off-the-clock in home projects and all that. This project, however, was created on the clock and so seems quite rightly to be the property of the employer -- a totally different story.
The real question is will the market bear the new regulations?
Or will new regulations making it ever more difficult to keep older cars on the road be introduced to fix the defects in these regulations?
After all, now that new cars are more expensive, people are going to keep the older ones on the road for longer, often with emissions equipment that is functioning at some fraction of intended efficiency. The result might be less gasoline consumption but higher particulate or NOx SOx emissions.
KDE should rename their Settings application to a unique string like: 'KDE Settings GnomeAreJerks' or 'Settings for KDE-is-better-than-GNOME'.
That solves the name conflict and underlying problems in one fell swoop.
A society's advance is measured by risk reduction, so stuff can be achieved without a large proportion of people being harmed in the process.
But risk reduction comes at a cost in something. You can't just arbitrarily reduce risk without sacrificing something else.
Projecting 'advance' down to a single axis necessarily means you are ignoring the trade-offs. A society in which I wouldn't be allowed to ride my motorcycle might be more 'advanced' by your narrow metric of reducing risk but it would seem very primitive by many other metrics.
Amazon, BackBlaze, etc... have pretty decent services that would allow you to backup to their service and not have to worry about the details. You can TrueCrypt and parity-protect your files before uploading to protect against their service either snooping or corrupting your data. Heck, if you are really paranoid, you could upload to 2 or 3 such services for the same price as rolling your own or even have periodic hashing for consistency.
The only downside I can see here is that you need to have sufficient upload bandwidth (and a compliant ISP) for the volume of data that needs to be backed up. The upsides are manifest: probably cheaper, better tech, not having to worry about implementation details, wasting less of your time managing your creations and more time creating.
This is one of those (rare) cases where offloading to the cloud makes a ton of sense.
So, I'd say hardware support is pretty good on OpenBSD. More importantly, the OS actually does its job and abstracts the hardware so developers don't have to pretend that they're writing DOS applications and ship a different code path for every possible combination of hardware on OpenBSD.
I don't think you are wrong in your experience or conclusion but when people talk about "hardware support" they are not referring to whether it will run on older architectures (Apple hasn't sold a PPC in nearly half a decade). Rather, they are talking about drivers for all the random peripherals they've accumulated -- wireless mice, webcams, joysticks, scanners, wifi cards, bluetooth modules. The number of people frustrated by installing an OS and not having it support no-name bluetooth module XXX or Broadcom wifi module YYY dwarfs those frustrated by the differences in the architecture-abstraction-layer and those running on exotic (read: non-x86) hardware.
Lumping that all in "hardware support" is silly.
That's how you get "no flag pole", and "vegetables are unsuitable" regulations past the court system.
Actually the no-vegetables was the city, not the HOA.
For the homebuyer, it's an agreed to private contract, all dressed up as a feature (which you've bought into apparently).
It's not a feature for me. I have a few old car projects in my driveway and random shit all over the place. My grass is up to my knees. I would never buy into an HOA.
It's a feature for other people, however.
But the fact is, the city/county wouldn't allow the developer to build without them.
If that's what the voters in that city/county want, that's their business. Who am I to tell them they must accept development under whatever terms the developer demands?
Ah, the illusion of choice.
They're not "of their own choice" if there isn't a ready choice. If all the homes for sale of a particular kind in a particular area are all HOA, then people who don't want a HOA will end up being in one against their will.
If all the homes for sale are HOA and the people actually want non-HOA houses, the first developer to offer a non-HOA house will make huge bucks. Developers aren't going to leave money on the table like that. You have a problem that you cannot believe others have a different preference than yours -- that people like HOAs (the majority of them, not the vocal minority) and will actually pay more for a house governed by an HOA.
The only illusion here is yours -- thinking that you know better than everyone else what they actually want. I hope that no one takes that attitude with you and what you want (although it would be sort of ironically just).
Yeah, make home owners associations illegal.
You mean to say that you don't think other human beings are smart enough to enter into contracts of their own choice when you think those agreements are not a good idea. How you got so smart that you can figure out what they can't is left unclear.
I could see some mandatory disclosures to help people make informed decisions, including having a neutral third-party explain exactly what they are getting into. I know I would never buy into a HOA property. I just can't stand the idea that because I don't like it then others shouldn't be able to chose differently -- it assumes far too much.
The Russians have a fine solution -- just release them immediately, in the middle of the sea, with no fuel. After all, you certainly don't need a trial not to hold someone.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/piracy/7713375/Somali-pirates-captured-and-released-by-Russian-navy-have-died.html
Yeah right. Try taking a banana away from a monkey. Or a bone away from a dog. Animals have a sense of ownership, it just usually doesn't last long because they tend to consume the item.
Funny, I have dogs and when the alpha takes a bone away from another dog, he or she just accepted it. As I understand, the same thing happens with monkeys.
Only humans have the concept that every individual can keep things even when an individual of superior social rank and physical power wants to take it away from them.
At what point does the soldiers responsibility become to defend the Constitution of the United States against *all* enemies, foreign and domestic, even if those enemies are the President and the appointed officers?
When he thinks that he is likely to be vindicated instead of spending 10 years busting bricks in Leavenworth for insubordination. Fun fact, willfully disobeying a lawful order of superior commissioned officer during time of war is punishable by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct:http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm90.htm -- usually the CM settles on Leavenworth (there hasn't been an execution in the US military since the 60s).
Folks on /. are keen on mocking the "I was following orders" defense but forget to include the flip-side of "we will send you to jail for not following orders".