Slashdot is so opposed to copyrights all the time, but then a GPL article comes up, and suddenly they're in favor of them again. The GPL is a copyright license that, according to the FSF website, "assures copyright over the software."
You can't be opposed to copyrights all the time and encouraging piracy but then turn around and bash people for violating your precious GPL copyright license. Choose a position and stick with it.
What confuses me is that the GPL is a copyright license, yet Slashdot is usually anti-copyright. If the GPL "assures copyright over of the software," as the FSF websites states, why isn't Slashdot opposed to it?
I've always wondered why that was considered cheating and not simply optimizing for a particular application. In fact, I don't even think there would be a controversy today. Most everyone would accept that the drivers detect certain games and optimize accordingly for best performance--it's expected of them now.
I can do the same because Steam lets me back the games up to disc. If you're still clinging to physical media in an era of digital distribution, you're backwards and afraid of change.
The DRM claim is misinformed because, thanks to Steam, I don't need to go through a disc check or activation step in the game. Sometimes there's a product key for non-Steam games that have been ported over, but Steam helpfully pops up an overlay with the key so I can type it in. There's less DRM getting in my way than what you have to deal with.
You just have a fear of progress. Installing from a CD seems slow and archaic today.
cp, like the rest of the userland tools, are a shipping part of BSD and not a separately maintained package, so talking about BSD's cp is talking about BSD.
Concern, what is your affiliation with the FSF, Stallman, or Debian? You're quick to call someone a shill when your devotion to this in the comments is bordering on absurd and is suggestive of a bias on your part. De Icaza's article seemed absolutely reasonable and rational, unlike Stallman's usual positions about people like Linus Torvalds "being against Freedom"--one of the reasons De Icaza compared Stallman's words to Bush-like fearmongering.
People who use terms like "Microsoft whore" need to go back to 1999 and start replacing the 's' with a dollar sign. Leave the calm and rational talk to those of us who deal in facts while you fight Stallman's holy war over operating systems (speaking of shills). Because of posts like yours and Concern's, this is why Slashdot isn't taken seriously for tech talk.
Dude. All De Icaza said was that there are some people in Microsoft steering it in a right direction. The word "ally" isn't even in his article. The more I read your posts, the more I realize you're a nutjob.
One thing De Icaza did mention is that Stallman uses absolutist Good Vs. Evil terminology to rally his base. Looks like it's worked on you.
I almost stopped reading your post the very moment you said Microsoft should get its money back. You're a typical Stallman tard who thinks anybody who isn't aligned with you is in bed with Microsoft. That's goofy crap.
The rest of your post is a paragraph that claims he's a Microsoft apologist without any evidence, another paragraph jerking off over the "moral compass" of the GPL, and a bizarre ending statement that references conservatives and completely misses the point De Icaza was making about Stallman's absolutist, Bush-like "Us Vs. Them" name-calling. For crying out loud, all De Icaza did is dare say that some good people worked at Microsoft, which is true, and that RMS uses emotion-based tactics to convey his point, which is also true. The fact your post is +5 Insightful is proof Slashdot has yet to crawl out of its 1999 "M$" mindset.
As for Stallman, he's a guy who eats his own toejam in public (there's a video) and sends mail to a daemon that wgets a page and mails it back to him because he won't visit websites directly (look it up). He's a crazy, out-of-touch, UNIX hippie who remains bitter that GNU failed to carry the free software flag the way others did, and his conflicts with De Icaza go back farther than Mono, which is one of the reasons Stallman said anything in the first place.
This is unenforceable. What counts as a blog? How would you report the blog? Do you shoot an email to flag@whitehouse.gov so Obama can get on the case? Will the government employ people to clean up the internet? Will there be an internet taskforce?
Because it's unenforceable, it's a meaningless regulation. All it does is get people used to the idea of the government passing regulations on the internet. They want their ARPANET back. If people get used to the idea of the government having control of the internet, then this crazy experiment of near-total freedom goes away.
Don't worry. I'm sure the government will be really specific with their definition so that they can't just apply it to anything. I'm sure this won't get abused in any way. I'm sure this isn't just the first step in increasing government regulation of the internet. I'm sure there's absolutely no reason to complain that the freedoms of the internet, good and bad, are going away in favor of increased government control.
It's not intended to be enforced. It's supposed to get people used to the idea of the government passing regulations for the internet. We have a White House that can't even stand the idea of people criticizing the president without getting reported to flag@whitehouse.gov. As time goes on, we'll see more and more government control of this crazy, uncontrolled haven of free speech. Basically, the government wants the internet back.
Is it really so hard for people to use their brains and exercise their own judgement when reading a review online? The danger of the internet is that you accept what you read at your own risk, but it's also the reward.
Once upon a time, the internet was uncontrolled for a while. In this unkempt jungle, ideas flourished, and free speech of all kinds and from all sides was posted. Then the day came when the government decided to regulate what bloggers wrote. It was just a first step that got people used to the idea of the government making rules for free speech on the internet. As time passed, more laws were created, and eventually, the internet reverted back to its government-controlled ARPANET state--a haven for regulated speech as dictated by the government, provided by the government to post what the government wants to hear. No longer would people exercise their brains and form their own judgements. The government did the thinking for them...
OS X uses frameworks, which can be installed in/Library/Frameworks or ~/Library/Frameworks. If an application wants to ship with its own framework, it will store it in the application bundle and link from there.
Are YOU stupid? The author of this piece, as it's been pointed out by other posters, has a history of anti-Nvidia bias and of being wrong. The site has a bunch of ATI ads. You do the math.
There's nothing controversial about having a mock-up of a product that's not due out for a while, which Nvidia freely admitted.
What's so bad about it? Slashdot's summary is clearly biased and intended to stir up the anti-corporate forces who read this site. I'm left wondering why it's so wrong to Slashdot for corporations to have rights. I know it makes you look clever to your dorm room buddies to hate capitalism and stuff, but the reality is that most corporations follow the law and deserve protections too.
Scoble specifically says you shouldn't use Wave like you would Twitter or Facebook. The problem is that Twitter and Facebook are very popular and successful, and fans should stop hyping Google Wave as a replacement for those if it's only really intended for small groups or as a wiki.
Seriously, the level of hype is ridiculous. Google, and even Arstechnica, keep pompously reciting the history of email when describing Wave, as if Wave is guaranteed to be a historic step forward on the same level as email. I can't help thinking if this was some Microsoft Research Labs project, people would barely give it press.
It'll be fun to play with, but as a replacement for IM, wikis, email, IRC, and Twitter? Come on...
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot is so opposed to copyrights all the time, but then a GPL article comes up, and suddenly they're in favor of them again. The GPL is a copyright license that, according to the FSF website, "assures copyright over the software."
You can't be opposed to copyrights all the time and encouraging piracy but then turn around and bash people for violating your precious GPL copyright license. Choose a position and stick with it.
What confuses me is that the GPL is a copyright license, yet Slashdot is usually anti-copyright. If the GPL "assures copyright over of the software," as the FSF websites states, why isn't Slashdot opposed to it?
Uh, there was outcry. I suspect you're an Nvidia fan, and you're remembering things a certain way as fans of things tend to do.
I've always wondered why that was considered cheating and not simply optimizing for a particular application. In fact, I don't even think there would be a controversy today. Most everyone would accept that the drivers detect certain games and optimize accordingly for best performance--it's expected of them now.
I can do the same because Steam lets me back the games up to disc. If you're still clinging to physical media in an era of digital distribution, you're backwards and afraid of change.
The DRM claim is misinformed because, thanks to Steam, I don't need to go through a disc check or activation step in the game. Sometimes there's a product key for non-Steam games that have been ported over, but Steam helpfully pops up an overlay with the key so I can type it in. There's less DRM getting in my way than what you have to deal with.
You just have a fear of progress. Installing from a CD seems slow and archaic today.
Why would we get mad at Intel? Part of a competitive environment is losing. This IS competition.
The video tag will be whatever YouTube decides it will be, which so far is H.264.
cp, like the rest of the userland tools, are a shipping part of BSD and not a separately maintained package, so talking about BSD's cp is talking about BSD.
I don't refer to the "userspace" when I mention an operation system. Otherwise, I'd also have to call it GNU/X11/GNOME/Linux.
The GNU prefix issue is just Stallman's bitterness over others stealing his thunder.
Concern, what is your affiliation with the FSF, Stallman, or Debian? You're quick to call someone a shill when your devotion to this in the comments is bordering on absurd and is suggestive of a bias on your part. De Icaza's article seemed absolutely reasonable and rational, unlike Stallman's usual positions about people like Linus Torvalds "being against Freedom"--one of the reasons De Icaza compared Stallman's words to Bush-like fearmongering.
Stallman eats his own toejam in public. The guy is a fruitcake. We don't need more fruitcakes in this world.
People who use terms like "Microsoft whore" need to go back to 1999 and start replacing the 's' with a dollar sign. Leave the calm and rational talk to those of us who deal in facts while you fight Stallman's holy war over operating systems (speaking of shills). Because of posts like yours and Concern's, this is why Slashdot isn't taken seriously for tech talk.
Dude. All De Icaza said was that there are some people in Microsoft steering it in a right direction. The word "ally" isn't even in his article. The more I read your posts, the more I realize you're a nutjob.
One thing De Icaza did mention is that Stallman uses absolutist Good Vs. Evil terminology to rally his base. Looks like it's worked on you.
I almost stopped reading your post the very moment you said Microsoft should get its money back. You're a typical Stallman tard who thinks anybody who isn't aligned with you is in bed with Microsoft. That's goofy crap.
The rest of your post is a paragraph that claims he's a Microsoft apologist without any evidence, another paragraph jerking off over the "moral compass" of the GPL, and a bizarre ending statement that references conservatives and completely misses the point De Icaza was making about Stallman's absolutist, Bush-like "Us Vs. Them" name-calling. For crying out loud, all De Icaza did is dare say that some good people worked at Microsoft, which is true, and that RMS uses emotion-based tactics to convey his point, which is also true. The fact your post is +5 Insightful is proof Slashdot has yet to crawl out of its 1999 "M$" mindset.
As for Stallman, he's a guy who eats his own toejam in public (there's a video) and sends mail to a daemon that wgets a page and mails it back to him because he won't visit websites directly (look it up). He's a crazy, out-of-touch, UNIX hippie who remains bitter that GNU failed to carry the free software flag the way others did, and his conflicts with De Icaza go back farther than Mono, which is one of the reasons Stallman said anything in the first place.
Why is this now rated as -1 Troll? Genuinely curious to know why, mods.
It's the FTC.
This is unenforceable. What counts as a blog? How would you report the blog? Do you shoot an email to flag@whitehouse.gov so Obama can get on the case? Will the government employ people to clean up the internet? Will there be an internet taskforce?
Because it's unenforceable, it's a meaningless regulation. All it does is get people used to the idea of the government passing regulations on the internet. They want their ARPANET back. If people get used to the idea of the government having control of the internet, then this crazy experiment of near-total freedom goes away.
Don't worry. I'm sure the government will be really specific with their definition so that they can't just apply it to anything. I'm sure this won't get abused in any way. I'm sure this isn't just the first step in increasing government regulation of the internet. I'm sure there's absolutely no reason to complain that the freedoms of the internet, good and bad, are going away in favor of increased government control.
It's not intended to be enforced. It's supposed to get people used to the idea of the government passing regulations for the internet. We have a White House that can't even stand the idea of people criticizing the president without getting reported to flag@whitehouse.gov. As time goes on, we'll see more and more government control of this crazy, uncontrolled haven of free speech. Basically, the government wants the internet back.
Is it really so hard for people to use their brains and exercise their own judgement when reading a review online? The danger of the internet is that you accept what you read at your own risk, but it's also the reward.
Except that he hasn't fapped over every Apple thing ever. He pretty convincingly addressed all this with Leo Laporte on a recent episode of TWIT.
From the future:
Once upon a time, the internet was uncontrolled for a while. In this unkempt jungle, ideas flourished, and free speech of all kinds and from all sides was posted. Then the day came when the government decided to regulate what bloggers wrote. It was just a first step that got people used to the idea of the government making rules for free speech on the internet. As time passed, more laws were created, and eventually, the internet reverted back to its government-controlled ARPANET state--a haven for regulated speech as dictated by the government, provided by the government to post what the government wants to hear. No longer would people exercise their brains and form their own judgements. The government did the thinking for them...
OS X uses frameworks, which can be installed in /Library/Frameworks or ~/Library/Frameworks. If an application wants to ship with its own framework, it will store it in the application bundle and link from there.
If we're having to store different versions of libraries, the whole purpose of dynamic linking has already been defeated.
Are YOU stupid? The author of this piece, as it's been pointed out by other posters, has a history of anti-Nvidia bias and of being wrong. The site has a bunch of ATI ads. You do the math.
There's nothing controversial about having a mock-up of a product that's not due out for a while, which Nvidia freely admitted.
I laughed.
What's so bad about it? Slashdot's summary is clearly biased and intended to stir up the anti-corporate forces who read this site. I'm left wondering why it's so wrong to Slashdot for corporations to have rights. I know it makes you look clever to your dorm room buddies to hate capitalism and stuff, but the reality is that most corporations follow the law and deserve protections too.
Scoble specifically says you shouldn't use Wave like you would Twitter or Facebook. The problem is that Twitter and Facebook are very popular and successful, and fans should stop hyping Google Wave as a replacement for those if it's only really intended for small groups or as a wiki.
Seriously, the level of hype is ridiculous. Google, and even Arstechnica, keep pompously reciting the history of email when describing Wave, as if Wave is guaranteed to be a historic step forward on the same level as email. I can't help thinking if this was some Microsoft Research Labs project, people would barely give it press.
It'll be fun to play with, but as a replacement for IM, wikis, email, IRC, and Twitter? Come on...