WinFS doesn't take a new filesystem to use it either. WinFS uses NTFS. I'm amazed how many people still don't know that WinFS is just a background indexing service.
For instance, hatred of the RIAA/MPAA and supporting piracy, but then hating people who "steal" GPL source code and violate copyright. It's a whirlwind of spin to work through.
And the bigger question is, why do they click the "Read more" link, click the "Reply" button, and go through the trouble of writing up a post about how uninterested they are?
The easier way would have been to--gasp--skip over the article on the front page. I do it all the time for articles I'm not interested in.
As we have already seen today, the GPL is under attack from evil forces known as "pirates." These shadowy folk silently steal source code and violate the GPL, infringing on the rights of GPL authors. They are nothing more than thieves getting a free ride off the work of others, and I for one am disgusted at the idea of it. As you can see in the previous article, clearly Slashdot is also sickened by the idea of copyright infringement and piracy.
Some have even called for a lawsuit against these pirate thieves. Suing individual infringers has always been a position that Slashdot and its readership has supported, so it's only fair that the original GPL authors protect their rights and safeguard their material from being stolen in the future. I think we should all support any lawsuits against these infringers to protect the rights of GPL authors everywhere.
I appluad Slashdot and its readers for always taking a proactive stance against piracy and copyright infringement in general, and I would like to join the cause against this "source code theft." Piracy is a major threat facing OSS today.
Not according to Slashdot. Here, piracy is NOT theft, and infringement is a right people have because they don't feel like compensating someone for their work. The more amusing reason I've heard is that they should stop making so much crappy music or else people would buy more of it, which begs the question, why are people pirating such crappy music then?
What I want to know is, how can people call for a lawsuit against CherryOS and then bitch when the RIAA sues infringers?
I thought we were against going after individual copyright infringers on Slashdot? Funny how that position shifts when it's a GPL project instead of a faceless record company.
It's still hypocritical to complain about this being "unethical" and "unauthorized distribution" when P2P is given something of a pass in Slashdot discussion.
You're arguing that they don't have the right to distribute this. Uh, yeah. Welcome to what it feels like to be someone whose music or software or movies are copied on P2P networks without your permission.
According to Slashdot, piracy isn't theft. Copyright infringement isn't theft. He can't be a thief if he's just doing what all other copyright infringers do, and since most people here seem to be okay with P2P piracy, they would also have to be okay with this kind of piracy, or else the position would be hypocritical.
Seriously, your argument isn't a compliment for Linux at all. Congratulations, you can set up a desktop for someone to just fire up a browser. Never mind when they want to use, say, GNOME apps but don't have GNOME installed. So now they have to install another desktop environment. What about developers? Which toolkit do they develop for? There are at least 10, all conflicting.
How about copy-paste? That's right, copy-paste still doesn't work universally. You left that one out.
Linux is absolutely not ready for the desktop. Windows 95--yes, Windows 95--surpasses it in functionality in a large number of ways, from binary install/uninstall APIs to a standard development API to code for. It's the reason most Win95 apps still run on XP. Try that with an old KDE 2.0 binary.
Of course, the standard counterargument is to reference freedesktop.org, which hardly anyone follows or else this all wouldn't still be a problem. Saying "We'll follow it...someday!" doesn't prove your point at all.
I'm sorry, Linux is a fantastic server, and a poor desktop OS. Unless you get a geek friend to spend a couple of hours setting it up perfectly so that all you have to do is click a browser icon. If that's all you're ever going to do, then congratulations--Linux is the best browser-launcher ever.
Some of us consider a "desktop" to be MUCH MUCH more than that. But supporters like you tend to narrow your definition to prop Linux up where it is not warranted. Only through constructive criticism and admission of faults will things ever improve. The community sometimes has real problems with doing that.
Why sue CherryOS? Wouldn't that be the same as suing copyright infringers on P2P, which nobody here likes (even though it's what Slashdot suggested back in 2000)? What's the difference? It's intellectual property in both cases.
I thought we were against intellectual property. I thought we were okay with copying such property.
You can't argue for piracy and copyright infringement against the RIAA and then stomp your feet when someone does it against a GPL project. It's hypocritical and illustrates the weak basis the pro-piracy argument has--it's just a self-serving argument to keep the free ride going.
"Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABCs World News Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News Special Report is the most centrist."
and
"...Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last.
Given that the conventional wisdom is that the Drudge Report and Fox News are conservative news outlets, this ordering might be surprising. Perhaps more surprising is the degree to which the mainstream press is liberal. The results of Table 8 show that the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, USA Today, and CBS Evening News are not only liberal, they are closer to the average Democrat in Congress (who has a score of 74.1) than they are to the median of the whole House (who has a score of 39.0)....the New York Times is twice as far from the center as Fox News Special Report, to gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading the New York Times....Our results contrast strongly with the prior expectations of many others. It is easy to find quotes from prominent journalists and academics who claim that there is no systematic bias among media outlets in the U.S.... The main conclusion of our paper is that our results simply reject such claims."
Ever consider that maybe Fox News is winning the ratings ware because it's even more sensationalist than CNN?
Yes. That's what option #2 covered.
What "worldview" do those options support? It's already a verified fact that Fox News is #1 in news ratings. Either a lot of people prefer Fox News because they don't consider it biased, or they do consider it biased and simply agree. Either way is a no-win situation for their critics. That's all I was saying.
On a related note, does anyone else find it to be something of a double-standard for Slashdot to be asking this question about Apple's behavior against ThinkGeek when it once threatened legal action against DailySlash in an IRC interview for infringement by posting summaries of Slashdot's articles?
I think a major factor that determines journalism is accountability.
Blogs just aren't as accountable as a major commercial entity like a magazine or newspaper. Just look at Slashdot. It posts flat-out inaccurate and wrong information all the time as front page news articles. But it's not really news, and the editors aren't journalists. They're just posting user-submitted blocks of text with links to other sites, often without vetting the information or even seeing if it was posted already.
If Slashdot was a print magazine, I guarantee facts would get checked a lot more often. But the Internet is seen as a responsibility-less place with no rules, so the attitude is much more lax.
Drudge posts blaring headlines and then edits them 30 minutes later when they turn out to be wrong. He posted that the Oscars had come "back from the dead" in ratings, and then an hour later I checked the site to see a giant headline claiming that ratings had been the lowest in five years. There was no mention of the change.
It's so easy to set up a webserver and post anything. That's why they are not considered journalists. When you're employed by a real news organization, there is a level of accountability and standards that must be met, or you will be fired. That accountability to someone isn't there when you're in your underwear and running your own server to post what you want.
Wasn't this covered in the last discussion? Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to say whatever the hell you want. Slander, abuse, harrassment, libel, and more all prohibit your right to say anything you want.
As I said last time, if you're a Coke insider and you post the top secret Coca-Cola formula to a blog, don't be surprised when your ass gets sued for revealing trade secrets.
This is slightly off-topic, but I don't get some people's vitriol against Fox News. It's hard news has never been shown to be biased, and in fact a UCLA/Stanford study declared Fox News as the most centrist news organization, with CNN slightly left of center.
I think some people purposely confuse the news analysts' shows like The O'Reilly Factor with the hard news segments that are just journalists reporting facts. CNN is currently getting slaughtered by Fox News, so it means one of two things:
1.) The majority of news viewers don't think Fox News is biased. 2.) Fox News is biased after all, and therefore the majority of viewership is conservative, contrary to what Michael Moore tells us.
As for blogging being a form of journalism, I don't see what's so journalistic about revealing Apple's trade secrets and upcoming products into the greedy hands of competitors. That's not loving Apple, that's fucking them over and justifying it with a journalist's hat.
Slashdot Mirror
You could do that without adding another layer to the HDD by simply having an element of the OS scan in the background efficiently.
That's already what WinFS does. It's a background indexing service.
People, WinFS is just a service that indexes files silently in an internal database. There isn't "another layer to the HDD" being added.
WinFS doesn't take a new filesystem to use it either. WinFS uses NTFS. I'm amazed how many people still don't know that WinFS is just a background indexing service.
Slashdot's hatred is too hard to pinpoint.
For instance, hatred of the RIAA/MPAA and supporting piracy, but then hating people who "steal" GPL source code and violate copyright. It's a whirlwind of spin to work through.
And the bigger question is, why do they click the "Read more" link, click the "Reply" button, and go through the trouble of writing up a post about how uninterested they are?
The easier way would have been to--gasp--skip over the article on the front page. I do it all the time for articles I'm not interested in.
...illegally distributed without a license...
Again. Like piracy?
One thing threatening Open Source today--piracy.
As we have already seen today, the GPL is under attack from evil forces known as "pirates." These shadowy folk silently steal source code and violate the GPL, infringing on the rights of GPL authors. They are nothing more than thieves getting a free ride off the work of others, and I for one am disgusted at the idea of it. As you can see in the previous article, clearly Slashdot is also sickened by the idea of copyright infringement and piracy.
Some have even called for a lawsuit against these pirate thieves. Suing individual infringers has always been a position that Slashdot and its readership has supported, so it's only fair that the original GPL authors protect their rights and safeguard their material from being stolen in the future. I think we should all support any lawsuits against these infringers to protect the rights of GPL authors everywhere.
I appluad Slashdot and its readers for always taking a proactive stance against piracy and copyright infringement in general, and I would like to join the cause against this "source code theft." Piracy is a major threat facing OSS today.
Not according to Slashdot. Here, piracy is NOT theft, and infringement is a right people have because they don't feel like compensating someone for their work. The more amusing reason I've heard is that they should stop making so much crappy music or else people would buy more of it, which begs the question, why are people pirating such crappy music then?
What I want to know is, how can people call for a lawsuit against CherryOS and then bitch when the RIAA sues infringers?
I thought we were against going after individual copyright infringers on Slashdot? Funny how that position shifts when it's a GPL project instead of a faceless record company.
It's still hypocritical to complain about this being "unethical" and "unauthorized distribution" when P2P is given something of a pass in Slashdot discussion.
You're arguing that they don't have the right to distribute this. Uh, yeah. Welcome to what it feels like to be someone whose music or software or movies are copied on P2P networks without your permission.
Going to all that trouble just to rip people off and install spyware. It's fucking sad.
When I once said this about Kazaa a few years ago, Slashdotters modded me down.
Why is ripping people off on P2P okay, but this is bad? Because it's a GPL project instead of a nameless artist from a record company?
According to Slashdot, piracy isn't theft. Copyright infringement isn't theft. He can't be a thief if he's just doing what all other copyright infringers do, and since most people here seem to be okay with P2P piracy, they would also have to be okay with this kind of piracy, or else the position would be hypocritical.
Remember, copyright infringement isn't theft. Right, guys?
Illegal, as in copyright infringement? As in piracy?
/. position on this.
I'm confused about the
I call bullcrap! You need a new word, dude.
Seriously, your argument isn't a compliment for Linux at all. Congratulations, you can set up a desktop for someone to just fire up a browser. Never mind when they want to use, say, GNOME apps but don't have GNOME installed. So now they have to install another desktop environment. What about developers? Which toolkit do they develop for? There are at least 10, all conflicting.
How about copy-paste? That's right, copy-paste still doesn't work universally. You left that one out.
Linux is absolutely not ready for the desktop. Windows 95--yes, Windows 95--surpasses it in functionality in a large number of ways, from binary install/uninstall APIs to a standard development API to code for. It's the reason most Win95 apps still run on XP. Try that with an old KDE 2.0 binary.
Of course, the standard counterargument is to reference freedesktop.org, which hardly anyone follows or else this all wouldn't still be a problem. Saying "We'll follow it...someday!" doesn't prove your point at all.
I'm sorry, Linux is a fantastic server, and a poor desktop OS. Unless you get a geek friend to spend a couple of hours setting it up perfectly so that all you have to do is click a browser icon. If that's all you're ever going to do, then congratulations--Linux is the best browser-launcher ever.
Some of us consider a "desktop" to be MUCH MUCH more than that. But supporters like you tend to narrow your definition to prop Linux up where it is not warranted. Only through constructive criticism and admission of faults will things ever improve. The community sometimes has real problems with doing that.
Why sue CherryOS? Wouldn't that be the same as suing copyright infringers on P2P, which nobody here likes (even though it's what Slashdot suggested back in 2000)? What's the difference? It's intellectual property in both cases.
I thought we were against intellectual property. I thought we were okay with copying such property.
You can't argue for piracy and copyright infringement against the RIAA and then stomp your feet when someone does it against a GPL project. It's hypocritical and illustrates the weak basis the pro-piracy argument has--it's just a self-serving argument to keep the free ride going.
I thought you couldn't "steal" something if you were just making a copy of it?
As usual, in CherryOS articles, copyright infringement of GPL code mysteriously becomes theft. In P2P piracy articles, copyright infringement mysteriously becomes an okay natural culture movement.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/smackdown.html
This girl could probably beat all of us up. Fear her.
One of my favorite aspects of Objective-C is the way methods are self-documenting. "[Object doThis:something toThis:something]" is easy to figure out.
and
Ever consider that maybe Fox News is winning the ratings ware because it's even more sensationalist than CNN?
Yes. That's what option #2 covered.
What "worldview" do those options support? It's already a verified fact that Fox News is #1 in news ratings. Either a lot of people prefer Fox News because they don't consider it biased, or they do consider it biased and simply agree. Either way is a no-win situation for their critics. That's all I was saying.
On a related note, does anyone else find it to be something of a double-standard for Slashdot to be asking this question about Apple's behavior against ThinkGeek when it once threatened legal action against DailySlash in an IRC interview for infringement by posting summaries of Slashdot's articles?
I think a major factor that determines journalism is accountability.
Blogs just aren't as accountable as a major commercial entity like a magazine or newspaper. Just look at Slashdot. It posts flat-out inaccurate and wrong information all the time as front page news articles. But it's not really news, and the editors aren't journalists. They're just posting user-submitted blocks of text with links to other sites, often without vetting the information or even seeing if it was posted already.
If Slashdot was a print magazine, I guarantee facts would get checked a lot more often. But the Internet is seen as a responsibility-less place with no rules, so the attitude is much more lax.
Drudge posts blaring headlines and then edits them 30 minutes later when they turn out to be wrong. He posted that the Oscars had come "back from the dead" in ratings, and then an hour later I checked the site to see a giant headline claiming that ratings had been the lowest in five years. There was no mention of the change.
It's so easy to set up a webserver and post anything. That's why they are not considered journalists. When you're employed by a real news organization, there is a level of accountability and standards that must be met, or you will be fired. That accountability to someone isn't there when you're in your underwear and running your own server to post what you want.
Wasn't this covered in the last discussion? Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to say whatever the hell you want. Slander, abuse, harrassment, libel, and more all prohibit your right to say anything you want.
As I said last time, if you're a Coke insider and you post the top secret Coca-Cola formula to a blog, don't be surprised when your ass gets sued for revealing trade secrets.
This is slightly off-topic, but I don't get some people's vitriol against Fox News. It's hard news has never been shown to be biased, and in fact a UCLA/Stanford study declared Fox News as the most centrist news organization, with CNN slightly left of center.
I think some people purposely confuse the news analysts' shows like The O'Reilly Factor with the hard news segments that are just journalists reporting facts. CNN is currently getting slaughtered by Fox News, so it means one of two things:
1.) The majority of news viewers don't think Fox News is biased.
2.) Fox News is biased after all, and therefore the majority of viewership is conservative, contrary to what Michael Moore tells us.
As for blogging being a form of journalism, I don't see what's so journalistic about revealing Apple's trade secrets and upcoming products into the greedy hands of competitors. That's not loving Apple, that's fucking them over and justifying it with a journalist's hat.