Re:What kind of self-respecting geek wants an HP?
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 2
ah, but what about the reason that HP won't sell you a non-windows pc: because microsoft says that if they do they lose their OEM license. I think(and i'm just stating my opinion), that's a pretty questionable practice.
This way, competing companies can effectively compete to make programs that work under MS Windows(because they'd have free, unhindered access to the standards), and alternate operating systems could compete because they could include compatability features that would allow programs written to run in Windows, to run in an other operating system.
Been done. It's called WINE. And they did it without any of microsoft's help. Doesn't run everything, but it's very impressive consider they had to just emulate the win32 api.
Ok, so now I'm beginning to think you have an axe to grind against the BSD license.
i don't think he does. he was just explaining why microsoft was attacking GPL and not the BSD license. i didn't really interpert the statements about BSD at all, and i'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion?
Re:MS fears US will mandate "OSS only" like Brazil
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 1
how are they out billions of dollars. OSS is free(typically). Even if the Gov. pays for development it's going to be a shitload cheaper than having to pay for proprietary software that they have to pay again for when they want to upgrade? Not only that they can fix bugs when THEY WANT TO, not be at the mercy of another companies whims. The government can customize the software to suit its needs for free. how is OSS more expensive than proprietary software, i want to know.
I was registering MSVC++ today, and i found out that i had to have a passport in order to register. Now, what I'm wondering, is why do I have to subsribe to this passport thing when I have to give them my information anyway when i register. Seems awfully redudant to me.
Morality and Religion are easily separated. I can be tight-assed in morals, but that in no way says that i have to believe in a God. That's the difference, and it's a huge one.
As for the teachers 10 rules list, a couple of them are redundant.
Re:To see how this will go, look at drugs
on
Killing Video Games
·
· Score: 1
I'm not against drug use, I'm just against drug use around me
I'm against people singing backstreet boys songs, but i can't do shit about that, now can i? deal with it.
I went to a catholic school as well, but i found that to be a rather different experience. Sure they're great for education, but they're terribly facist institutions, and it sucks to be there if you are not christian, and sucks even sometimes if you are not catholic.
i believe the correct quote was:
"Those who give up an essential liberty to achieve temporary safety deserver neither liberty nor safety."
And yes, it was Franklin.
I don't know if the author of the article checked this or not, but if the contract(I'm assuming one was signed for the ReplayTV service) stated "ReplayTV reserves the right to modify the service without prior notice" or something to that effect, you can't really do anything about "forced" upgrades.
I agree with the v-chip in PRINCIPLE, but not in PRACTICE.
It's nice that parents do have a tool. however, there are several issues with how the v-chip is implemented:
The ratings system: It is still someone else's standards being placed on me. I have vastly different ideas of what constitutes an "R" rating than the MPAA. Most of the movies i watch would at worst hit "PG-13". Until it allows me to actually select content i don't want my kids to watch and doesn't block stuff that i wouldn't mind my kids watching, then I'm not for it. Personally i think that the rating system the MPAA uses is good for a guideline for some people but it should not be forced upon everyone. And what if there's some movement and suddenly something like Pokemón ends up being Rated 'R'? What then?
censorship will still be around: i'm not naive enough to think that censorship will go away after the v-chip comes to town. in fact, our cable networks will probably still vigorously censor material even though they don't have to, since parents actually have a method to block their shows if they don't like them.
So, the v-chip in its current form just takes away the right of responsibility for parents, and still doesn't solve the problem of censorship. Until they solve both these problems, i will never be for it.
too bad they don't do that for us in the states. the worst part about it is that even with the v-chip they STILL woulnd't unedit movies on network tv if we choose not to use it.
Down here in the u.s. those of us fighting for free speech aren't simply fighting to shooot off our mouth whenever we feel like. I too believe in responsibility. I believe that our laws take the right to even have that responsibility, because the democrats and republicans do not believe we are capable of that responsibility, not only in free speech, but in virtually every aspect of our life(which is why we're in dire need of getting third party elected officials.) I agree there are those who want free speech without responsiblity, but i do take responsibility for what i say, and there are many, many others in this country who feel the same way.
You have a good point, but the reality of the situation is that as a parent, the responsibility of raising a child rests solely on the PARENT. The government has no business in determining what is right and what is not right for a child. Only the parent can do that. And only the parent bears the responsibility to make sure the kid doesn't do anything wrong. By making government laws saying minors can't do this, minors can't do that.... the government is essnetially acting as a nanny in place of the parent. The government has no business doing that, and thankfully in this cases the court realized that. You are right, if someone is dependant on their parents they kind of have to live by "the parent's rules", but the government has no right to step in and decide what "the parent's rules" are, or to enforce those rules.
I remember someone talking about how the RIAA fights censorship. I wish that was still true, but it isn't anymore. They will fight censorships from time to time, but not wholeheartadly, and end up settling for bad compromises.
If the RIAA really cared about fighting censorship, there would be no "tipper" stickers. Remeber what happened to ICE T? People wouldn't have the misconception that Marilyn Manson was connected to columbine. We wouldn't have state laws that make it illegal for a 17-year old to buy a KoRn album.
RIAA protects the ideals of freedom of expression just as badly as the democrats do.
Yes, but who buys vinyls or cassettes anymore? Also, the sales of these things have been slippping since 1997(look at the RIAA's spreadsheet they just put out). Sure, you can "rip" cassettes and vinyls onto mp3z, but generally the mentality of music is that CDs are the standard, and the other forms of media have sufferred because of it. To say that napster is the cause of the sales drop in these things is just a blatant lie.
http://www.riaa.org/pdf/year_end_2000.pdf
some very interesting revelations here.
assuming the statistics are right, does anyone seem to notice a downward trend since 1997(before napster's existence) on the categories that the RIAA is bitching about losing money in, yet CD sales are still up 3%. Maybe is that no one cares to buy cassettes and CD singles. Why would they buy singles for music that is overplayed on radio stations 24/7?
i find it very insulting that the RIAA would publish a report disproving their claims while claiming it supports them. Too bad people are fucking stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
ah, but what about the reason that HP won't sell you a non-windows pc: because microsoft says that if they do they lose their OEM license. I think(and i'm just stating my opinion), that's a pretty questionable practice.
Been done. It's called WINE. And they did it without any of microsoft's help. Doesn't run everything, but it's very impressive consider they had to just emulate the win32 api.
i don't think he does. he was just explaining why microsoft was attacking GPL and not the BSD license. i didn't really interpert the statements about BSD at all, and i'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion?
how are they out billions of dollars. OSS is free(typically). Even if the Gov. pays for development it's going to be a shitload cheaper than having to pay for proprietary software that they have to pay again for when they want to upgrade? Not only that they can fix bugs when THEY WANT TO, not be at the mercy of another companies whims. The government can customize the software to suit its needs for free. how is OSS more expensive than proprietary software, i want to know.
I was registering MSVC++ today, and i found out that i had to have a passport in order to register. Now, what I'm wondering, is why do I have to subsribe to this passport thing when I have to give them my information anyway when i register. Seems awfully redudant to me.
As for the teachers 10 rules list, a couple of them are redundant.
I'm against people singing backstreet boys songs, but i can't do shit about that, now can i? deal with it.
our government doesn't work that way. it's do what we say or we fine/arrest you.
I went to a catholic school as well, but i found that to be a rather different experience. Sure they're great for education, but they're terribly facist institutions, and it sucks to be there if you are not christian, and sucks even sometimes if you are not catholic.
i believe the correct quote was: "Those who give up an essential liberty to achieve temporary safety deserver neither liberty nor safety." And yes, it was Franklin.
I don't know if the author of the article checked this or not, but if the contract(I'm assuming one was signed for the ReplayTV service) stated "ReplayTV reserves the right to modify the service without prior notice" or something to that effect, you can't really do anything about "forced" upgrades.
I agree with the v-chip in PRINCIPLE, but not in PRACTICE. It's nice that parents do have a tool. however, there are several issues with how the v-chip is implemented: The ratings system: It is still someone else's standards being placed on me. I have vastly different ideas of what constitutes an "R" rating than the MPAA. Most of the movies i watch would at worst hit "PG-13". Until it allows me to actually select content i don't want my kids to watch and doesn't block stuff that i wouldn't mind my kids watching, then I'm not for it. Personally i think that the rating system the MPAA uses is good for a guideline for some people but it should not be forced upon everyone. And what if there's some movement and suddenly something like Pokemón ends up being Rated 'R'? What then? censorship will still be around: i'm not naive enough to think that censorship will go away after the v-chip comes to town. in fact, our cable networks will probably still vigorously censor material even though they don't have to, since parents actually have a method to block their shows if they don't like them. So, the v-chip in its current form just takes away the right of responsibility for parents, and still doesn't solve the problem of censorship. Until they solve both these problems, i will never be for it.
too bad they don't do that for us in the states. the worst part about it is that even with the v-chip they STILL woulnd't unedit movies on network tv if we choose not to use it.
Down here in the u.s. those of us fighting for free speech aren't simply fighting to shooot off our mouth whenever we feel like. I too believe in responsibility. I believe that our laws take the right to even have that responsibility, because the democrats and republicans do not believe we are capable of that responsibility, not only in free speech, but in virtually every aspect of our life(which is why we're in dire need of getting third party elected officials.) I agree there are those who want free speech without responsiblity, but i do take responsibility for what i say, and there are many, many others in this country who feel the same way.
Except they still won't uncensor regular tv shows.
You have a good point, but the reality of the situation is that as a parent, the responsibility of raising a child rests solely on the PARENT. The government has no business in determining what is right and what is not right for a child. Only the parent can do that. And only the parent bears the responsibility to make sure the kid doesn't do anything wrong. By making government laws saying minors can't do this, minors can't do that.... the government is essnetially acting as a nanny in place of the parent. The government has no business doing that, and thankfully in this cases the court realized that. You are right, if someone is dependant on their parents they kind of have to live by "the parent's rules", but the government has no right to step in and decide what "the parent's rules" are, or to enforce those rules.
I remember someone talking about how the RIAA fights censorship. I wish that was still true, but it isn't anymore. They will fight censorships from time to time, but not wholeheartadly, and end up settling for bad compromises.
If the RIAA really cared about fighting censorship, there would be no "tipper" stickers. Remeber what happened to ICE T? People wouldn't have the misconception that Marilyn Manson was connected to columbine. We wouldn't have state laws that make it illegal for a 17-year old to buy a KoRn album.
RIAA protects the ideals of freedom of expression just as badly as the democrats do.
Yes, but who buys vinyls or cassettes anymore? Also, the sales of these things have been slippping since 1997(look at the RIAA's spreadsheet they just put out). Sure, you can "rip" cassettes and vinyls onto mp3z, but generally the mentality of music is that CDs are the standard, and the other forms of media have sufferred because of it. To say that napster is the cause of the sales drop in these things is just a blatant lie.
http://www.riaa.org/pdf/year_end_2000.pdf some very interesting revelations here. assuming the statistics are right, does anyone seem to notice a downward trend since 1997(before napster's existence) on the categories that the RIAA is bitching about losing money in, yet CD sales are still up 3%. Maybe is that no one cares to buy cassettes and CD singles. Why would they buy singles for music that is overplayed on radio stations 24/7? i find it very insulting that the RIAA would publish a report disproving their claims while claiming it supports them. Too bad people are fucking stupid.
why buy the $8 single when you can listen to it on the radio?