Does this mean all the work of porting it was needless?
Perhaps not... one might speculate that Trolltech released Qt for Windows under the GPL specifically because the port was almost there. Also, Trolltech claims that their GPLed version doesn't come with tools that will work with Visual Studio, whereas the public port does.
Furthermore, does this mean we'll see an influx of Qt apps being ported to Windows now that they're free to use Qt on that platform?
One would hope. There are certainly some KDE apps that I'd like to be able to use on Windows.
My guess would be money. The EFF doesn't have the cash to take on all these cases at once. They choose a few battles and then fight them in hopes of setting a precedent. Rest assured, every time they take a case, they're doing it for the greater good and not just for the person being sued... if they took every case people asked them to take, they'd run out of money and not be able to make a difference.
...back when i was addicted to playing Quake 2 online. Since most kids use computers to play games and chat with their friends instead of intellectual pursuits such as programming, on average, grades will fall and they won't learn as much.
That said, I've always liked programming for fun, and that's done nothing but help me, especially in the areas of math and logical thinking. The key, I think, is getting people to use computers for creative pursuits (programming, writing, art, music, etc) instead of just entertainment and socialization. Sitting around playing games all day doesn't really expand the mind, whereas creating things arguably does.
I'm not Gabe or Tycho, but here's a hint for college-aged geek guys: Female medical students.
I myself am a computer nerd. My fiancee is a med student. Her four best female med student friends consistently date computer nerds. Also, this isn't a case of two groups of people... none of us guys knew each other until we met through our girlfriends. Go figure.
If you're angry that VU is being a pain in the ass about this, the best thing you can do is cut them out of the profit stream by buying the game online as opposed to the boxed copy.
In the society you just desribed, you naturally end up with a few people who are born with more money and then do everything they can to stay in power. That isn't survival of the fittest. In fact, it's been shown time and time again that an incompetent moron with money and friends can get a lot farther than a smart, "fit" individual who had to start at ground zero. Survivial of the Fittest works in nature because nature doesn't have nepotism.
At the time we invaded, they were following UN resolutions (ie, allowing inspectors unfettered access to essentially anywhere they wanted to go). We swore up and down to the UN that they had WMDs (remeber Colin Powell?), and then when we came crashing in there and trashed their country, it became evident that we had in fact been lying the whole time (or just incredibly, horrendously incompetent -- Powell, Rice, and Cheney aren't idiots, so I don't buy that).
There's one other problem with forcing democracy on them: they don't want it. If things are truly allowed to run their course in the Iraqi election (which you can bet they won't be), Iraq would end up with a Muslim fundamentalist leader who would just start stripping away everyone's freedoms again. Pretty soon you'd end up with another country where women have to be covered from head to toe and are punished for being raped.
Oh, and one other thing. You claim that other countries were "on the take" from Saddam Hussein. Maybe they were just being reasonable and didn't want to invade Iraq while Saddam was complying with UN inspections. Our reason for invading at the time that we did it was that Saddam had failed to produce any WMDs (I stress at the time because our reason has since "flip-flopped" "opportunistcally"). It's obvious now that the reason he couldn't produce them is that he didn't have any at all.
But when you're 40 years old and you finally get your office job and you're wearing a suit and tie to work, all of a sudden you realize the government is taking 35 percent of the money that you've worked so hard for and giving it to people who do nothing but sit on the couch, watch TV, and procreate.
What about people who work sixty hours a week at minimum wage and can't afford to feed their famililes? Lazy bastards.
It's sad that the term "Big Government" carries such negative connotations. It's mostly something that Republicans (ironically) invoke to attack Democrats.
When railing on big government, it's important to consider the fact that big government was what got us out of the Great Depression, and small government was what got us into it. Unchecked capitalism leads to monopolies, which lead to all of the wealth being concentrated in a few hands, which leads to (eventual) economic collapse. You can see it happening right now. Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, etc.
The solution isn't a total conversion to communism or socialism (both of which have repeatedly been shown to cause economic stagnation), but rather to put a system in place that redistributes wealth at about the same rate that the wealthy can hoard it. That's where taxes and social programs come in.
Unfortunately, people will always take advantage of the system. Capitalism, even controlled capitalism, provides an incentive for people not to do this. What's important to remember is that the people who are taking advantage are the exception and not the rule. So while some of your tax money is wasted on welfare for layabouts and bottom-feeders, it's also going to a lot of people who genuinely need it and deserve the help.
One last note: If you have to vote for lower taxes, you should vote for Badnarik over Bush, as someone will eventually have to pay for Bush's out-of-control spending. Kerry in 2004!
The best way to fight terrorism is to build an environment where people don't want to be terrorist.
Interesting that you should point that out. Iraq was never much of a terrorist threat in the first place. But now that we've gone in there, violated their national soverignty, and made a mess of their country, we've soured the taste of freedom. For them, "freedom" means chaos. It means not being able to go anywhere without fear of being attacked. Even here in this country, a significant minority would rather give up their freedom than their safety (PATRIOT act, anyone?).
Since we've taken away their security, those people who may have viewed us with suspicious neutrality before detest us now. That's where terrorists come from.
Terrorism isn't something you can just get rid of. Hatred like that has to fade away over generations, and we've just renewed it. You are not safer now that we've occupied Iraq. In fact, it's fairly safe to say that we're in more danger.
Slashdot Mirror
[next poster insert memory option here]
4. ???
5. Profit!
Does this mean all the work of porting it was needless?
Perhaps not... one might speculate that Trolltech released Qt for Windows under the GPL specifically because the port was almost there. Also, Trolltech claims that their GPLed version doesn't come with tools that will work with Visual Studio, whereas the public port does.
Furthermore, does this mean we'll see an influx of Qt apps being ported to Windows now that they're free to use Qt on that platform?
One would hope. There are certainly some KDE apps that I'd like to be able to use on Windows.
Should I use vi or Emacs?
Which is better... Gnome or KDE?
Should I get a PC or a Macintosh?
Should I have voted for Bush or Kerry?
Who's cooler: pirate or ninja?
"Their definition of "violent themes" likely includes plumbers jumping on the heads of turtles."
Funny as that may sound, you're probably more right than you think. My guess is "Mild Animated Violence" is considered a "violent theme" in this case.
And we only had one keyed morse-code based keyboards.
There's one of those connected to my Macintosh.
No, nothing like that. I just didn't have time to comment on the story. :)
EA 1, Customers 0
My guess would be money. The EFF doesn't have the cash to take on all these cases at once. They choose a few battles and then fight them in hopes of setting a precedent. Rest assured, every time they take a case, they're doing it for the greater good and not just for the person being sued... if they took every case people asked them to take, they'd run out of money and not be able to make a difference.
What, exactly, is Bluefish?
Never bring a gun to work... you might relapse into Couter-strike mode :) ...or get fired, 'cause, like, you brought a gun to work.
Let's fill a space shuttle up with rocks and ice, and then send it out to Saturn and replenish the ring ourselves!
Wow, that's my kind of entertainment. :)
...back when i was addicted to playing Quake 2 online. Since most kids use computers to play games and chat with their friends instead of intellectual pursuits such as programming, on average, grades will fall and they won't learn as much.
That said, I've always liked programming for fun, and that's done nothing but help me, especially in the areas of math and logical thinking. The key, I think, is getting people to use computers for creative pursuits (programming, writing, art, music, etc) instead of just entertainment and socialization. Sitting around playing games all day doesn't really expand the mind, whereas creating things arguably does.
It ought to keep your garage nice and warm. Problem solved. :)
I'm not Gabe or Tycho, but here's a hint for college-aged geek guys: Female medical students.
I myself am a computer nerd. My fiancee is a med student. Her four best female med student friends consistently date computer nerds. Also, this isn't a case of two groups of people... none of us guys knew each other until we met through our girlfriends. Go figure.
If you're angry that VU is being a pain in the ass about this, the best thing you can do is cut them out of the profit stream by buying the game online as opposed to the boxed copy.
Faith based initiatives are antidisestablishmentraistic bullshit.
Be honest here. This entire post was just an excuse to use that one word.
Interesting you should point that out. I'm sure it didn't bother you all that much when Bush lost the electoral vote back in 2000.
...would account for GWB's entire lead in Ohio. Keep an eye out, folks.
In the society you just desribed, you naturally end up with a few people who are born with more money and then do everything they can to stay in power. That isn't survival of the fittest. In fact, it's been shown time and time again that an incompetent moron with money and friends can get a lot farther than a smart, "fit" individual who had to start at ground zero. Survivial of the Fittest works in nature because nature doesn't have nepotism.
At the time we invaded, they were following UN resolutions (ie, allowing inspectors unfettered access to essentially anywhere they wanted to go). We swore up and down to the UN that they had WMDs (remeber Colin Powell?), and then when we came crashing in there and trashed their country, it became evident that we had in fact been lying the whole time (or just incredibly, horrendously incompetent -- Powell, Rice, and Cheney aren't idiots, so I don't buy that).
There's one other problem with forcing democracy on them: they don't want it. If things are truly allowed to run their course in the Iraqi election (which you can bet they won't be), Iraq would end up with a Muslim fundamentalist leader who would just start stripping away everyone's freedoms again. Pretty soon you'd end up with another country where women have to be covered from head to toe and are punished for being raped.
Oh, and one other thing. You claim that other countries were "on the take" from Saddam Hussein. Maybe they were just being reasonable and didn't want to invade Iraq while Saddam was complying with UN inspections. Our reason for invading at the time that we did it was that Saddam had failed to produce any WMDs (I stress at the time because our reason has since "flip-flopped" "opportunistcally"). It's obvious now that the reason he couldn't produce them is that he didn't have any at all.
War may have been a catalyst, but what brought an end to the great depression was the New Deal.
But when you're 40 years old and you finally get your office job and you're wearing a suit and tie to work, all of a sudden you realize the government is taking 35 percent of the money that you've worked so hard for and giving it to people who do nothing but sit on the couch, watch TV, and procreate.
What about people who work sixty hours a week at minimum wage and can't afford to feed their famililes? Lazy bastards.
It's sad that the term "Big Government" carries such negative connotations. It's mostly something that Republicans (ironically) invoke to attack Democrats.
When railing on big government, it's important to consider the fact that big government was what got us out of the Great Depression, and small government was what got us into it. Unchecked capitalism leads to monopolies, which lead to all of the wealth being concentrated in a few hands, which leads to (eventual) economic collapse. You can see it happening right now. Rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, etc.
The solution isn't a total conversion to communism or socialism (both of which have repeatedly been shown to cause economic stagnation), but rather to put a system in place that redistributes wealth at about the same rate that the wealthy can hoard it. That's where taxes and social programs come in.
Unfortunately, people will always take advantage of the system. Capitalism, even controlled capitalism, provides an incentive for people not to do this. What's important to remember is that the people who are taking advantage are the exception and not the rule. So while some of your tax money is wasted on welfare for layabouts and bottom-feeders, it's also going to a lot of people who genuinely need it and deserve the help.
One last note: If you have to vote for lower taxes, you should vote for Badnarik over Bush, as someone will eventually have to pay for Bush's out-of-control spending. Kerry in 2004!
The best way to fight terrorism is to build an environment where people don't want to be terrorist.
Interesting that you should point that out. Iraq was never much of a terrorist threat in the first place. But now that we've gone in there, violated their national soverignty, and made a mess of their country, we've soured the taste of freedom. For them, "freedom" means chaos. It means not being able to go anywhere without fear of being attacked. Even here in this country, a significant minority would rather give up their freedom than their safety (PATRIOT act, anyone?).
Since we've taken away their security, those people who may have viewed us with suspicious neutrality before detest us now. That's where terrorists come from.
Terrorism isn't something you can just get rid of. Hatred like that has to fade away over generations, and we've just renewed it. You are not safer now that we've occupied Iraq. In fact, it's fairly safe to say that we're in more danger.
and they usually stink. ...because they're full of shit.