Perhaps you missed my "I agree," which were the first two words of my post.
No, I saw it.. I also noticed that it was followed by the word "but", which typically means that you don't really agree, or were trying to make an argument counter to that agreement (which you were.)
You wouldn't believe the amount of angry customer calls I had escalated to me
So, were you one of the idiots who thought it would be a good idea to break your own mail servers by enabling PMTU discovery and then dropping the replies when you hit a router with an MTU of less than 1500?
"... all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code..."
One might be able to make the argument that providing source code and build files isn't enough, because you can't distribute the "means" to get it on an actual iPhone, since that requires an extra fee, and Apple's approval.
(Emphasis mine)
I'm wondering exactly what the source code to "Apple's approval" looks like.
But to address the meat of your argument - are you trying to claim that since the original developers don't have the source to the app store, that they can't release GPL'ed software for the iPhone at all? Even if it was released as a free app? Because that's the end result of your argument.
It would also mean that you are arguing that it's a violation of the GPL to release apps for Android through Market, because the source for that isn't available.
Can you explain what part of this is "security by obscurity"?
My guess would be the "closed source" part, thinking it's stopping people from finding bugs in the code.
Hint: there's a difference between design and code. You quoted the design, and assumed that since the design is secure, that automatically translates to the code being secure too.
The owner of the machine producing the output is the owner of the output.
So say I was a professional photographer. My camera breaks before a big gig, so I rent one from the repair company. According to your "common sense", the camera repair company (instead of me, or my client) would own the copyright to all the pictures I take?!??!?!
Perhaps you came over to my place, and used my copy of Photoshop to make a picture. I own the copyright on the work you made?
Common sense would say the person performing the creative input (or their employer, in the case of work-for-hire) would get own the copyright.
The machine is transforming input to output - so whoever provides the input would own the copyright on the output.
in Wolfrum Alpha's case, you contribute no original content (a search string)
What?!?!
I am crafting the search string to generate output. Unless every single search string has been pre-vetted by Wolfram, it's quite obvious that it is mine. If I vary the the search string, I get different results. That's pretty obviously "original".
If anything, the search string is the *only* part that's creative (the output is just a database.)
It's like buying a scratched DVD in a second-hand shop.
Except that it's *not* scratched, and it's bought *new* from the original "manufacturer" (or agent thereof.) And you can't physically examine it to check for "scratches" before you buy it, and the "scratching" is being deliberately done by the manufacturer after you get it home.
So, basically it's like buying a scratched DVD from a second-hand shop only if you define "like" as "completely unrelated and in no way similar in any way, shape, or form".
What happened to do no evil? Providing a nation with the tools necessary to perform attacks on freedom fighters seems pretty evil to me.
Yes, because the sole reason for Google Earth to exist is so that Pakistan could use it (ineffectively) for military purposes. It has no other use at all, and Google never released it to anyone else, for any other purpose.
ive jumped into quite a few projects replacing a previous programmer. Some were experienced and reading their code was really interesting, others were fired for being incompetent and I ended up rewriting most of their code.
In any cases, the first few days, weeks or months depending on the size of the code are spent studying the structure rather than actually coding.
The differences here are that A) this is an open-source project, B) this is a *HIGH PROFILE* open source project, and C) Alan was the maintainer, not sole coder (so he both coded, and accepted patches from others.)
It's possible that Alan was the only one who knew anything about the TTY code and how it worked, but I'd doubt it. I'd be really surprised if the new maintainer comes into the role cold.
So the [prducts] I buy from Wal-Mart are some how different and less quality than the same items that I would buy from any other retail or grocery store but probably pay more for?
This does not have to be on the website. It can be via a CD mailed out to you.
Yes, that would be 3(B), which the author said he couldn't find. Since you seem to be implying that it's there, perhaps you could provide a link for us?
We may believe we know what their maximum resolution is. Revealing photographs removes some of the uncertainty.
1m photos were widely available by civillian satellites by 1998. You think the fact that someone might say "OMG- the military gear might be as good as the stuff private companies used 5 years ago!" removes any "uncertainty"?!?!
"it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour"
that's the leap that you aren't being very convincing about. there seems to be this movement of "omgz everything humanz do is wrong!" which isn't science.
Perhaps if you stopped attacking straw men, you might realize that there is ample science to back up this point.
Google and Apple share three board members. This is the biggest reason that has kept multitouch (for all its uselessness) out of the main Android builds.
Ahh, thank you - I wasn't aware of that! I was always under the impression that Google didn't want to get into a patent war over it (which didn't make much sense to me, in light of Bliski.) Your explanation certainly makes more sense to me.:)
Apple has captured the audience which does not use smartphones. These are the people who have traditionally used the latest Motorola RAZR, LG Shine or Samsung Omnia, phones
.. and post on/. talking about how much farther ahead Apple is over Android.:)
No. Google left out multi-touch support because the first generation hardware didn't support it.
Bullshit. With the right software, the G1 does multitouch just fine, thankyouverymuch.
Yes, there were hacks, but they were total crap.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The "hacks" just enable it in software - there needs to be support in the kernel, and in the apps. You have that, the G1 (and Magic) both do multitouch just fine.
The HTC Hero is the first Android device with actual hardware (and software) multi-touch support.
This is the most bizarre statement you've made. If the Hero is the first with hardware support, why is it that you take the Hero ROM, load it on your G1, and you get multitouch? You have made two contradictory claims (of course, they're *both* false.)
The HTC Hero is the first Android device with multitouch support in software. You'll also notice it's not available in the US.
And Cyanogen says it has "full multitouch support throughout".
Considering Google left multitouch out to avoid a fight with Apple, this is an *awfully* big co-incidence.. Is this Google saying "game on" to Apple as retaliation for rejection of the native Latitude app?
As a very happy Android owner, the thought brings a smile to my face.:)
There is a REASON why MSI was looking at 400% return rates on their Linux netbooks
Considering that they were the only ones to have a 400% return rate, I'm guessing that reason would be that they had a piss-poor distro with tons of bugs.
I know because I had the same thing happen when I tried selling Linux.
Considering that ASUS had no such issues, it kind of refutes your whole hypothesis that it's impossible to sell Linux. My guess is that you had problems similar to MSI.
They are _forced_ to be uber diligant about this by the government, because, if God forbid, they let an 18 year old get a beer they face anything between losing their license and jail time. Governments also consistently ruled that if someone gives the barman a fake ID and they fall for it, it's still the barman's fault
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you missed my "I agree," which were the first two words of my post.
No, I saw it.. I also noticed that it was followed by the word "but", which typically means that you don't really agree, or were trying to make an argument counter to that agreement (which you were.)
The side that made that decision is likely in a different city than the call-centre that handles support calls
Considering that he had calls escalated to him, that implies he might not be in the call center, but be an actual technician (which was my question.)
You wouldn't believe the amount of angry customer calls I had escalated to me
So, were you one of the idiots who thought it would be a good idea to break your own mail servers by enabling PMTU discovery and then dropping the replies when you hit a router with an MTU of less than 1500?
"... all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code..."
One might be able to make the argument that providing source code and build files isn't enough, because you can't distribute the "means" to get it on an actual iPhone, since that requires an extra fee, and Apple's approval.
(Emphasis mine)
I'm wondering exactly what the source code to "Apple's approval" looks like.
But to address the meat of your argument - are you trying to claim that since the original developers don't have the source to the app store, that they can't release GPL'ed software for the iPhone at all? Even if it was released as a free app? Because that's the end result of your argument.
It would also mean that you are arguing that it's a violation of the GPL to release apps for Android through Market, because the source for that isn't available.
I just pray that Uwe Bolle doesn't direct a movie based on the warhammer universe. It would suck. Hard.
Umm, you have five redundant words in there - "based on the warhammer universe" is completely extraneous.
Alien is a suspense/thriller.
Aliens is an action movie.
Alien3 was a drama.
Alien4 was a bad comedy.
At least I had a few years without Xenomorphs showing up in my nightmare.
(IIRC, the nightmares involved having a pulse rifle that ran out of ammo.)
Funny, I would have thought the most recent ones would have involved Jean-Pierre Jeunet directing another movie. :)
Can you explain what part of this is "security by obscurity"?
My guess would be the "closed source" part, thinking it's stopping people from finding bugs in the code.
Hint: there's a difference between design and code. You quoted the design, and assumed that since the design is secure, that automatically translates to the code being secure too.
The owner of the machine producing the output is the owner of the output.
So say I was a professional photographer. My camera breaks before a big gig, so I rent one from the repair company. According to your "common sense", the camera repair company (instead of me, or my client) would own the copyright to all the pictures I take?!??!?!
Perhaps you came over to my place, and used my copy of Photoshop to make a picture. I own the copyright on the work you made?
Common sense would say the person performing the creative input (or their employer, in the case of work-for-hire) would get own the copyright.
The machine is transforming input to output - so whoever provides the input would own the copyright on the output.
in Wolfrum Alpha's case, you contribute no original content (a search string)
What?!?!
I am crafting the search string to generate output. Unless every single search string has been pre-vetted by Wolfram, it's quite obvious that it is mine. If I vary the the search string, I get different results. That's pretty obviously "original".
If anything, the search string is the *only* part that's creative (the output is just a database.)
It's like buying a scratched DVD in a second-hand shop.
Except that it's *not* scratched, and it's bought *new* from the original "manufacturer" (or agent thereof.) And you can't physically examine it to check for "scratches" before you buy it, and the "scratching" is being deliberately done by the manufacturer after you get it home.
So, basically it's like buying a scratched DVD from a second-hand shop only if you define "like" as "completely unrelated and in no way similar in any way, shape, or form".
What happened to do no evil? Providing a nation with the tools necessary to perform attacks on freedom fighters seems pretty evil to me.
Yes, because the sole reason for Google Earth to exist is so that Pakistan could use it (ineffectively) for military purposes. It has no other use at all, and Google never released it to anyone else, for any other purpose.
There's a reason why we live so much longer now a days compared to middle ages and before and hell, even to beginning of 1900.
Yes, it's called "lower childhood mortality" - and it has nothing to do with food.
ive jumped into quite a few projects replacing a previous programmer. Some were experienced and reading their code was really interesting, others were fired for being incompetent and I ended up rewriting most of their code.
In any cases, the first few days, weeks or months depending on the size of the code are spent studying the structure rather than actually coding.
The differences here are that A) this is an open-source project, B) this is a *HIGH PROFILE* open source project, and C) Alan was the maintainer, not sole coder (so he both coded, and accepted patches from others.)
It's possible that Alan was the only one who knew anything about the TTY code and how it worked, but I'd doubt it. I'd be really surprised if the new maintainer comes into the role cold.
So the [prducts] I buy from Wal-Mart are some how different and less quality than the same items that I would buy from any other retail or grocery store but probably pay more for?
Mu. The products you buy from Wal-Mart are "less quality" than similar items from the same manufacturers that you buy at other retail outlets and pay more for.
a few rouge iPhones
I thought they only came in black?
This does not have to be on the website. It can be via a CD mailed out to you.
Yes, that would be 3(B), which the author said he couldn't find. Since you seem to be implying that it's there, perhaps you could provide a link for us?
We may believe we know what their maximum resolution is. Revealing photographs removes some of the uncertainty.
1m photos were widely available by civillian satellites by 1998. You think the fact that someone might say "OMG- the military gear might be as good as the stuff private companies used 5 years ago!" removes any "uncertainty"?!?!
"it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour"
that's the leap that you aren't being very convincing about. there seems to be this movement of "omgz everything humanz do is wrong!" which isn't science.
Perhaps if you stopped attacking straw men, you might realize that there is ample science to back up this point.
Google and Apple share three board members. This is the biggest reason that has kept multitouch (for all its uselessness) out of the main Android builds.
Ahh, thank you - I wasn't aware of that! I was always under the impression that Google didn't want to get into a patent war over it (which didn't make much sense to me, in light of Bliski.) Your explanation certainly makes more sense to me. :)
Apple has captured the audience which does not use smartphones. These are the people who have traditionally used the latest Motorola RAZR, LG Shine or Samsung Omnia, phones
.. and post on /. talking about how much farther ahead Apple is over Android. :)
No. Google left out multi-touch support because the first generation hardware didn't support it.
Bullshit. With the right software, the G1 does multitouch just fine, thankyouverymuch.
Yes, there were hacks, but they were total crap.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The "hacks" just enable it in software - there needs to be support in the kernel, and in the apps. You have that, the G1 (and Magic) both do multitouch just fine.
The HTC Hero is the first Android device with actual hardware (and software) multi-touch support.
This is the most bizarre statement you've made. If the Hero is the first with hardware support, why is it that you take the Hero ROM, load it on your G1, and you get multitouch? You have made two contradictory claims (of course, they're *both* false.)
The HTC Hero is the first Android device with multitouch support in software. You'll also notice it's not available in the US.
And Cyanogen says it has "full multitouch support throughout".
Considering Google left multitouch out to avoid a fight with Apple, this is an *awfully* big co-incidence.. Is this Google saying "game on" to Apple as retaliation for rejection of the native Latitude app?
As a very happy Android owner, the thought brings a smile to my face. :)
There is a REASON why MSI was looking at 400% return rates on their Linux netbooks
Considering that they were the only ones to have a 400% return rate, I'm guessing that reason would be that they had a piss-poor distro with tons of bugs.
I know because I had the same thing happen when I tried selling Linux.
Considering that ASUS had no such issues, it kind of refutes your whole hypothesis that it's impossible to sell Linux. My guess is that you had problems similar to MSI.
They are _forced_ to be uber diligant about this by the government, because, if God forbid, they let an 18 year old get a beer they face anything between losing their license and jail time. Governments also consistently ruled that if someone gives the barman a fake ID and they fall for it, it's still the barman's fault
[citation_needed]
I was on the verge of googling his (repeated) use of the word slim to see what hip, young lingo I needed to add to my repertoire.
Dude, that is *so* slim!