As always, attempting to use sarcasm here without tags is futile. Obviously, the distinction between "free as in Free" and "Free as in free" is completely bewildering; even people here who argue obsessively about it are confused.
The problem (assuming it's a problem and not a deliberate choice) is the insistence of Stallman and the FSF on redefining existing words for their own purposes and then insisting that everyone else is misusing them.
The difference is that violating the GPL makes the information less Free, whereas violating most other copyrights and/or licenses makes the information more free.
To be precise, violating the GPL makes the information more free but less Free, while violating most copyrights makes the infomation more free but equally Free.
It astonishes me that we're in the 21st century and people are still confused by this.
The submitter neglected to explain what the supposed GPL violation might be, but it seems from R'ingTFA that the DR-DOS bundle includes GPL'd products without adequately crediting the authors or including license information.
Well, that'll work today. Then tomorrow the sploggers* will catch on and use more complex names, and Blogger will be stuck with that now-useless cruft forever.
* I hate most blogoneologisms, but kind of like this one. Can we look forward to splogcasts in the future?
On the other hand, if you have a financial or emotional investment in the imminent domination of the planet by Google, you've got to wonder why they didn't think to preempt this controversy, either by coopting the publishing industry (the comparison to Apple is striking) or by preemptively getting their legal arguments (and lobbyists!) out.
It's reasonable as a rookie mistake, but not for the Most Important Company On Earth.
By these definitions of what science is, it really only "requires an open mind" in the hypothesis formation stage. In the hypothesis testing stage, it requires the exact opposite: intense efforts to falsify ("debunk") the hypothesis.
The basic idea is to reject the "null hypothesis" that no effect of some action exists by statistically testing the data. "Failure to reject the null hypothesis" triggers rejection of the contrary hypothesis that an effect exists.
C'mon... The "null hypothesis" is a construct on which the significance of statistical tests is hung. That doesn't mean that someone performing a t-test is emotionally invested in the null hypothesis. Ideally, one should look as critically as possible at one's hypothesis, but the use of null-based tests is hardly evidence that one is doing so.
Also, accepting or rejecting the alternate hypothesis is *not* "debunking" the rejected model, even if far too many people don't understand that p = 0.04 isn't automatically True and 0.06 False.
1) Sorry, that came off harsher than I'd intended it. I was irritated by the suggestion that all I and my coworkers do is roll around in piles of money and giggle until it's time to go home.
2) Second, even if you were correct in your notion that drug companies pick up developed compounds from university chemists (which, again, is preposterously, ridiculously false), it's worth pointing out that the clinical trials you throw in as an afterthought to marketing cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, are an absolute necessity and usually end in expensive failure.
100%, without a doubt. No drug company starts from scratch in their research, and no drug company anywhere on Earth has 100,000 chemists following their own ideas on basic research. Drug companies dole out research grants only AFTER there is already some promise shown with a new compound, and that only comes after some assistant professor spends 20 years in the university lab using taxpayer dollars to follow his pet theory.
As someone who does this for a living -- what you're saying is absolutely, positively, utterly wrong. You do not have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about.
But don't take my word for it. Go to the job postings on any pharma company's web site and take a look at what jobs they're filling. Go to PubMed and read their papers.
Exactly! That's what I'm complaining about!!! Linux is being held back because it's "hard to write for", because it doesn't have a standard desktop toolkit!
I'm sorry, but you simply don't understand this.
X11 isn't a Unix standard because it's more intrinsically "standard" than the KDE and GNOME libraries are. It's standard because it's accepted as such. There's nothing technical keeping KDE or GNOME from being any less standard than X11; each simply has been unable to displace the other the way X displaced competing windowing systems. One can certainly argue that this is a wasteful duplication of effort (and many people do), but your technical assertions are simply wrong.
GNOME and KDE represent a huge duplication of effort, which should have instead been put into libraries that are designed to work for any unix-like system.
Huh?!?!? That's exactly what they are! For historical and political reasons, they're not considered "standard" Unix libraries (although the GNOME guys pushed a while ago for some of their libs to be considered standard), but that has noting to do with any technical difference.
By the way, who is this "we" you did all that stuff with...?
You know, a window is a window is a window. Is the code needed to create a window not abstracted from the window manager?
KDE and GNOME aren't just window managers. The code needed to make a full-featured (or even not full-featured) KDE or GNOME application relies on the presence of KDE or GNOME libraries and resources.
First, I don't get what your second link (the same as the first link) is supposed to be showing.
Second, the percent of people in this study claiming mental disabilities is 10%. 5% is the sort of low grade stuff that you're referring to and that (I'd guess) makes up a large share, if not a majority of those prescriptions. The other 5% is severe mental illness -- that number seems very high to me, for a population that is entirely employed.
And 2% blindness, in a sample that is not just employed, but employed in a vision-heavy job?!?
Percentage of people with disabilities = 13% (e.g., cognitive, mobility, sight, etc)
This number strikes me as astonishingly high. Looking at the raw data: as I'd figured, 5% of that is dyslexia/ADD/whatever (which is still pretty high). But 2% blind?!? 1% paraplegic/ALS? 5% saying yes to "Mental illness (eg, depression, schizophrenia, etc)"?!?!? Yikes!
Either there's some huge skewing in the study sampling or the game industry is, to put it mildly, a demographic outlier. It's interesting how all the discussion of the report fails to take any note of a supposed 5% rate of severe mental illness.
Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft, Google, iPod, game developers, game developers, game developers, shaaria-compliant Simpsons in Arabic, game developers...
Slow day at Google today -- it's a good thing someone stepped into the breach to sue them!
It's an improvement on the current TV situation there, which is Everybody Loves Raymond and Law and Order on even more relentlessly than they are in the US. At least here we have shows about building custom motorcycles to round out the last 8 hours of the day.
So, how is Google any different, except that it's potentially more massive, EVEN faster than the library system I'm used to, and available to even more people??
It sounds like the difference is that the library system has its legal ducks in a row, whereas Google decided to go ahead on the basis of We're Google And We're The Future and let the chips fall where they may.
Incidentally, do you really think you have the only city with a unified library circulation? They have that pretty much everywhere in the US.
This reads like he stuck a bunch of Score: 3 Slashdot posts together and called it a book. Do I get a -1 Troll for pointing out that I've been writing Word documents to PDF, in both Mac and Windows, for a decade? Not sure why Tony Bove still can't manage it.
I can't believe he's still trying to stretch out his fifteen minutes of fame over that. I mean, it's not like he doesn't have people calling him an idiot pretty much every day -- I don't get why that one guy (who apologized!) got so under his skin.
This is not complicated and I don't get why people find it so difficult to comprehend. Macs are still going to be Macs, with MacOS and Cocoa. There's going to be a chip inside with a different instruction set; everything upstream will be essentially identical.
MacOS is not going to magically turn into Windows or Linux just because there's Intel Inside. Mac development will be unchanged, with some marginal exceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem (assuming it's a problem and not a deliberate choice) is the insistence of Stallman and the FSF on redefining existing words for their own purposes and then insisting that everyone else is misusing them.
To be precise, violating the GPL makes the information more free but less Free, while violating most copyrights makes the infomation more free but equally Free.
It astonishes me that we're in the 21st century and people are still confused by this.
The submitter neglected to explain what the supposed GPL violation might be, but it seems from R'ingTFA that the DR-DOS bundle includes GPL'd products without adequately crediting the authors or including license information.
* I hate most blogoneologisms, but kind of like this one. Can we look forward to splogcasts in the future?
It's reasonable as a rookie mistake, but not for the Most Important Company On Earth.
The basic idea is to reject the "null hypothesis" that no effect of some action exists by statistically testing the data. "Failure to reject the null hypothesis" triggers rejection of the contrary hypothesis that an effect exists.
C'mon... The "null hypothesis" is a construct on which the significance of statistical tests is hung. That doesn't mean that someone performing a t-test is emotionally invested in the null hypothesis. Ideally, one should look as critically as possible at one's hypothesis, but the use of null-based tests is hardly evidence that one is doing so.
Also, accepting or rejecting the alternate hypothesis is *not* "debunking" the rejected model, even if far too many people don't understand that p = 0.04 isn't automatically True and 0.06 False.
In fairness, I think the OP was making an anti-anti-Indian point, not an anti-Indian one.
1) Sorry, that came off harsher than I'd intended it. I was irritated by the suggestion that all I and my coworkers do is roll around in piles of money and giggle until it's time to go home.
2) Second, even if you were correct in your notion that drug companies pick up developed compounds from university chemists (which, again, is preposterously, ridiculously false), it's worth pointing out that the clinical trials you throw in as an afterthought to marketing cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, are an absolute necessity and usually end in expensive failure.
I agree about the Koreans, but this is a Palo Alto-based biotech company, not those guys.
As someone who does this for a living -- what you're saying is absolutely, positively, utterly wrong. You do not have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about.
But don't take my word for it. Go to the job postings on any pharma company's web site and take a look at what jobs they're filling. Go to PubMed and read their papers.
(A bit disappointed in Carnivore24 and Zonk for not spinning the story as "Google To Cure Cancer!", but a weekend's a weekend...)
It saved us from a full Apple-free day, though. Google, you're up...!
I'm sorry, but you simply don't understand this.
X11 isn't a Unix standard because it's more intrinsically "standard" than the KDE and GNOME libraries are. It's standard because it's accepted as such. There's nothing technical keeping KDE or GNOME from being any less standard than X11; each simply has been unable to displace the other the way X displaced competing windowing systems. One can certainly argue that this is a wasteful duplication of effort (and many people do), but your technical assertions are simply wrong.
Huh?!?!? That's exactly what they are! For historical and political reasons, they're not considered "standard" Unix libraries (although the GNOME guys pushed a while ago for some of their libs to be considered standard), but that has noting to do with any technical difference.
By the way, who is this "we" you did all that stuff with...?
KDE and GNOME aren't just window managers. The code needed to make a full-featured (or even not full-featured) KDE or GNOME application relies on the presence of KDE or GNOME libraries and resources.
Second, the percent of people in this study claiming mental disabilities is 10%. 5% is the sort of low grade stuff that you're referring to and that (I'd guess) makes up a large share, if not a majority of those prescriptions. The other 5% is severe mental illness -- that number seems very high to me, for a population that is entirely employed.
And 2% blindness, in a sample that is not just employed, but employed in a vision-heavy job?!?
This number strikes me as astonishingly high. Looking at the raw data: as I'd figured, 5% of that is dyslexia/ADD/whatever (which is still pretty high). But 2% blind?!? 1% paraplegic/ALS? 5% saying yes to "Mental illness (eg, depression, schizophrenia, etc)"?!?!? Yikes!
Either there's some huge skewing in the study sampling or the game industry is, to put it mildly, a demographic outlier. It's interesting how all the discussion of the report fails to take any note of a supposed 5% rate of severe mental illness.
Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft, Google, iPod, game developers, game developers, game developers, shaaria-compliant Simpsons in Arabic, game developers...
Slow day at Google today -- it's a good thing someone stepped into the breach to sue them!
It's an improvement on the current TV situation there, which is Everybody Loves Raymond and Law and Order on even more relentlessly than they are in the US. At least here we have shows about building custom motorcycles to round out the last 8 hours of the day.
What?!? You have insufficient love for your Apple product! Buy it a present right now and hope Steve will forgive you!
It sounds like the difference is that the library system has its legal ducks in a row, whereas Google decided to go ahead on the basis of We're Google And We're The Future and let the chips fall where they may.
Incidentally, do you really think you have the only city with a unified library circulation? They have that pretty much everywhere in the US.
This reads like he stuck a bunch of Score: 3 Slashdot posts together and called it a book. Do I get a -1 Troll for pointing out that I've been writing Word documents to PDF, in both Mac and Windows, for a decade? Not sure why Tony Bove still can't manage it.
I can't believe he's still trying to stretch out his fifteen minutes of fame over that. I mean, it's not like he doesn't have people calling him an idiot pretty much every day -- I don't get why that one guy (who apologized!) got so under his skin.
That's *exactly* the sort of thing that I meant by "marginal".
MacOS is not going to magically turn into Windows or Linux just because there's Intel Inside. Mac development will be unchanged, with some marginal exceptions.