Um before anyone follows Jef's vision of the future of human-computing interfaces, you might want to consider that he was opposed to the use of a mouse on the Macintosh.
If he hadn't been replaced by Jobs as the team lead, the Macintosh would have no mouse, using keyboard function keys instead.
Nah. The circuit court decision was on fairly narrow grounds - basically that what the RIAA tried to do was not supportable by the language of the DCMA. The RIAA simply needs to get Congress (you know, the people they give lots of money to) to add a few paragraphs to the DCMA, and they'll be back in business again.
I have the exact same box on Comcast in Virginia, and it works very well. You only get HD on the HD channels (which start at 200. These duplicate some of the normal channels (which start at 2) and some digital channels (which start at 100). There are also specific HD versions of premium channels like HBO and Showtime in the HD range.
Occasionally, a HD channel will show something (usually sports highlights or news interviews) which was originally not HD and will be much poorer quality. Also, live HD MLS soccer feeds are prone to the transmission glitches of a live situation, but what would be an almost unnoticable problem in low-res is a big ugly artifact in HD.
That's such a pathetic troll, I can see why you posted as AC.
"Quality of documentation" means absolutely Jack Shit.
This demonstrates that you're not a pro. Good documentation is worth it if it saves just a few hours of a good programmer ($140k/year) time. And I've developed with both GTK and Qt, and the documentation is worth it several times over the first time you have to subclass something.
Cost of developing with QT: $7,480 PER FUCKING SEAT.
This is pretty stupid FUD. Trust me, GTK, wxWindows, and MFC doesn't include the same capabilities as the "everything but the kitchen sink" version of Qt that you priced at $7500. The basic version of Qt that gives you what GTK does is about $1500 per platform.
THE COST OF QT MAY NOT BE A PROBLEM TO YOU. BUT IT IS FOR THE VAST MAJORITY, INCLUDING ME.
I'm sorry for you, but it isn't a problem for pros working for real companies. You must work in a sweatshop somewhere if your time isn't worth $1500 for a decent toolkit.
Only a "pretend" commercial shop would find the Qt cost too high. Any real shop would find it a bargin comparing the quality of the documentation alone.
Sure, if your idea of a product is 100 copies at $10, it's a lot of money but that's a hobby and not a business.
You might have some other legitimate reason for preferring Gtk, like for example your coders don't know C++, but blaming license cost is a joke.
Could you mention specific issues you have with it?
I switched to SuSE from RedHat at about SuSE 8.0, and have had no problems migrating a fairly large codebase through all the revisions up to current 9.1
It's been rock solid on a variety of system types and the KDE environment is second to none for usability.
It is nice and more snappy - as is the whole jvm - but I don't think it matters much.
If Java could get developer momentum behind SWT or some other native widget binding perhaps, but...I don't see swing as a way forward (own L&F, desktop integration, etc.) for Java on the desktop, and that's why Mono looks like the winner in that area.
As SCO was getting started on the lawsuit binge and before SCO had received lawsuit funding from Microsoft, Baystar, or RBC, Sun mysteriously found a need to dramatically expand their licensing agreement with SCO. As part of the agreement, Sun received millions of dollars worth of (basically free) SCO stock and started a FUD campaign against Linux.
No matter how badly Sun fans want to spin it, that agreement clearly isn't just "the way Sun pays SCO for SysV licensing".
I wonder if Sun (who helped fund SCO's attack on Linux) has worked this out with SCO in some way that we'll only understand when the license comes out.
Otherwise, this is in violent conflict with the bizarre SCO derivative theory.
Thankfully, the whole SCO mess had kind of faded away into a bland hum of claims, counterclaims, and posturing by SCO. It's still annoying, but you know in the end they'll be ground into dust.
On the other hand, these guys are such clowns it's no surprise IBM is wiping the floor with them. We'll have something to worry about when a well-funded, smart foe springs a well-conceived trap (.net/mono, Sun/Java,...) on us.
Got any case law on how it applies to the discussion (the ability of the government to attach conditions to air travel)?
Most attempts to use the 9th in this fashion (federal income tax, licenses, fees, identification, etc.) have ended up with the proponent loosing (and often in jail).
It just sounded like you were so fervently anti-government
Actually, if you read the first post I made on the story, I was defending the government's motives in requiring identification material. The government (leaving the relatively small number of politicians aside) is full of people trying (however imperfectly) to do the right thing and plug the holes as best they can. I don't think anyone can reasonably blame them for the "failure of imagination" parts of 9/11.
The government did nothing effective with that information. Feel better?
You have repeatedly said the government did nothing for the passengers flagged by CAPPS, when in fact they followed 100% of the procedures ordered by that system.
You are entirely correct, but miss the point in the context of this discussion: something useful could have been done with that knowledge and there is a reason for collecting passenger ID information.
Policymakers just never believed that someone would execute a suicide hijacking, let alone four simultaneously. Judging by your multiple posts, you really do need to read the commission report.
I suggest you do the same. I recall several discussions (past chapter 1) where it was clear they did believe it - they simply didn't follow through with policy changes. One I specifically remember is that NORAD had a suicide hijacking scenario within an official exercise (that week?).
In fact, it turns our the government knew these people were trouble, knew they got on board, and it didn't help.
Right. When they tried to board, after presenting identification several of them were red flagged by CAPPS. Unfortunately nothing was done with that information. Hopefully the government does something next time.
I don't think an unfettered right to aircraft travel is mentioned in the constitution either.
If you think living without IDs is that important, try driving up to a cop without a drivers license and explaining how the government can't require one. Good luck, let me know when you're out of the court system.
Governments are more interested in how much more power they can get their hands on, rather than what's actually best for the people.
Maybe I'm naive, but I think it's at least slightly possible that people in the government are trying to make it harder for thousands of people to be blown up. Knowing who is present on board internally guided flying bombs might be helpful in that struggle.
AFAIK this isn't in the (yes I hate it too) Patriot Act.
applying it wholesale to everyone who disagrees with the fact that you're too fucking lazy to make the distinction.
Bad grades in reading comprehension, eh?
two things are utterly different and have NOTHING to do with one another
They are both illegal acts with serious consequences. Many clueless kids use one out-of-context fact - "copyright violation is NOTHING like theft" (thoughtfully provided by you) to justify illegal actions "i can do warez!" (otherwise they're whores, right?).
So why not call it the proper way, copyright infringement instead of saying "it is stealing" and simply implying and want people to draw the same conclusions as you do with theft of physical property?
I agree with you, they are two distinct things and people improperly equate them.
But the reason people equate them is to counter the pervasive indoctrination that since it "not the same as stealing" it's not really illegal and therefore one can do the P2P music/movie/warez thing without consequence.
All the slashdot lawyers screaming "it's not the same as stealing" usually try to get others to forget that Copyright violation is wrong, illegal and you can get in serious trouble for it.
Unfortunately you seem to have bought the line that copyright violation is somehow equivalent to theft. It isn't. It never has been. But if enough people like you refuse to exercise their brains concerning the matter and keep insisting that the two are one and the same, then some day they will be - at least legally
Both theft and copyright violation are illegal. People who engage in either activity can and are punished.
If a software company wants to produce something and only allow people to "rent" it, they should be able to do so. If people don't like those terms, they should avoid the product instead of engaging in illegal activity.
Does that make you feel better? Probably not because your posting implies you believe in a right to copyright violation just because you don't like the (perfectly legal) business model they use.
I don't advocate or have anything to do with closed source software, but I hate seeing whiney attempts to justify using things that don't belong to you. If you don't like the license, go find an alternative.
I sometimes think that the interaction of Linux and the GPL is lost on Sun.
They persist in talking about RedHat as if they could execute predatory behavior like Microsoft does. RedHat can try, but at some point the market will kick in and limit what they can get away with because customers will always have a choice (White Box, SuSE, etc.) and thus always have some leverage with RedHat. It's just a question of at what pricing pain point it will happen.
Teach a kid or two to program. Especially a disadvantaged kid. There are a lot of 10-15 year olds without anything good going on in their lives who need something to grab onto.
Slashdot Mirror
If ATI puts out Linux MB drivers for this, I hope they're better than their graphics card drivers, but I don't hold out much hope.
NVIDIA has done an excellent job on Linux drivers for their products, so it CAN be done.
Um before anyone follows Jef's vision of the future of human-computing interfaces, you might want to consider that he was opposed to the use of a mouse on the Macintosh.
If he hadn't been replaced by Jobs as the team lead, the Macintosh would have no mouse, using keyboard function keys instead.
So in short.... the RIAA is effectively REAMED.
Nah. The circuit court decision was on fairly narrow grounds - basically that what the RIAA tried to do was not supportable by the language of the DCMA. The RIAA simply needs to get Congress (you know, the people they give lots of money to) to add a few paragraphs to the DCMA, and they'll be back in business again.
*Exactly* the question I wanted to ask and very well stated. Thanks.
I have the exact same box on Comcast in Virginia, and it works very well. You only get HD on the HD channels (which start at 200. These duplicate some of the normal channels (which start at 2) and some digital channels (which start at 100). There are also specific HD versions of premium channels like HBO and Showtime in the HD range.
Occasionally, a HD channel will show something (usually sports highlights or news interviews) which was originally not HD and will be much poorer quality. Also, live HD MLS soccer feeds are prone to the transmission glitches of a live situation, but what would be an almost unnoticable problem in low-res is a big ugly artifact in HD.
That's such a pathetic troll, I can see why you posted as AC.
"Quality of documentation" means absolutely Jack Shit.
This demonstrates that you're not a pro. Good documentation is worth it if it saves just a few hours of a good programmer ($140k/year) time. And I've developed with both GTK and Qt, and the documentation is worth it several times over the first time you have to subclass something.
Cost of developing with QT: $7,480 PER FUCKING SEAT.
This is pretty stupid FUD. Trust me, GTK, wxWindows, and MFC doesn't include the same capabilities as the "everything but the kitchen sink" version of Qt that you priced at $7500. The basic version of Qt that gives you what GTK does is about $1500 per platform.
THE COST OF QT MAY NOT BE A PROBLEM TO YOU. BUT IT IS FOR THE VAST MAJORITY, INCLUDING ME.
I'm sorry for you, but it isn't a problem for pros working for real companies. You must work in a sweatshop somewhere if your time isn't worth $1500 for a decent toolkit.
Only a "pretend" commercial shop would find the Qt cost too high. Any real shop would find it a bargin comparing the quality of the documentation alone.
Sure, if your idea of a product is 100 copies at $10, it's a lot of money but that's a hobby and not a business.
You might have some other legitimate reason for preferring Gtk, like for example your coders don't know C++, but blaming license cost is a joke.
Could you mention specific issues you have with it?
I switched to SuSE from RedHat at about SuSE 8.0, and have had no problems migrating a fairly large codebase through all the revisions up to current 9.1
It's been rock solid on a variety of system types and the KDE environment is second to none for usability.
It is nice and more snappy - as is the whole jvm - but I don't think it matters much.
If Java could get developer momentum behind SWT or some other native widget binding perhaps, but...I don't see swing as a way forward (own L&F, desktop integration, etc.) for Java on the desktop, and that's why Mono looks like the winner in that area.
As SCO was getting started on the lawsuit binge and before SCO had received lawsuit funding from Microsoft, Baystar, or RBC, Sun mysteriously found a need to dramatically expand their licensing agreement with SCO. As part of the agreement, Sun received millions of dollars worth of (basically free) SCO stock and started a FUD campaign against Linux.
g =f d_top
No matter how badly Sun fans want to spin it, that agreement clearly isn't just "the way Sun pays SCO for SysV licensing".
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1024633.html?ta
I wonder if Sun (who helped fund SCO's attack on Linux) has worked this out with SCO in some way that we'll only understand when the license comes out.
Otherwise, this is in violent conflict with the bizarre SCO derivative theory.
I think several (no names come to mind immediately) books he's written with other people have been pretty good over the last decade.
I might just be soft, though. I didn't hate Destiny's Road.
Thankfully, the whole SCO mess had kind of faded away into a bland hum of claims, counterclaims, and posturing by SCO. It's still annoying, but you know in the end they'll be ground into dust.
...) on us.
On the other hand, these guys are such clowns it's no surprise IBM is wiping the floor with them. We'll have something to worry about when a well-funded, smart foe springs a well-conceived trap (.net/mono, Sun/Java,
Got any case law on how it applies to the discussion (the ability of the government to attach conditions to air travel)?
Most attempts to use the 9th in this fashion (federal income tax, licenses, fees, identification, etc.) have ended up with the proponent loosing (and often in jail).
But it's easy to be a slashdot lawyer...
It just sounded like you were so fervently anti-government
Actually, if you read the first post I made on the story, I was defending the government's motives in requiring identification material. The government (leaving the relatively small number of politicians aside) is full of people trying (however imperfectly) to do the right thing and plug the holes as best they can. I don't think anyone can reasonably blame them for the "failure of imagination" parts of 9/11.
The government did nothing effective with that information. Feel better?
You have repeatedly said the government did nothing for the passengers flagged by CAPPS, when in fact they followed 100% of the procedures ordered by that system.
You are entirely correct, but miss the point in the context of this discussion: something useful could have been done with that knowledge and there is a reason for collecting passenger ID information.
Policymakers just never believed that someone would execute a suicide hijacking, let alone four simultaneously. Judging by your multiple posts, you really do need to read the commission report.
I suggest you do the same. I recall several discussions (past chapter 1) where it was clear they did believe it - they simply didn't follow through with policy changes. One I specifically remember is that NORAD had a suicide hijacking scenario within an official exercise (that week?).
In fact, it turns our the government knew these people were trouble, knew they got on board, and it didn't help.
Right. When they tried to board, after presenting identification several of them were red flagged by CAPPS. Unfortunately nothing was done with that information. Hopefully the government does something next time.
I don't think an unfettered right to aircraft travel is mentioned in the constitution either.
If you think living without IDs is that important, try driving up to a cop without a drivers license and explaining how the government can't require one. Good luck, let me know when you're out of the court system.
True, but it _should_ have done some good.
CAPPS (based on the id AFAIK) flagged several of the hijackers but the authorities didn't do anything useful with that information.
Governments are more interested in how much more power they can get their hands on, rather than what's actually best for the people.
Maybe I'm naive, but I think it's at least slightly possible that people in the government are trying to make it harder for thousands of people to be blown up. Knowing who is present on board internally guided flying bombs might be helpful in that struggle.
AFAIK this isn't in the (yes I hate it too) Patriot Act.
applying it wholesale to everyone who disagrees with the fact that you're too fucking lazy to make the distinction.
Bad grades in reading comprehension, eh?
two things are utterly different and have NOTHING to do with one another
They are both illegal acts with serious consequences. Many clueless kids use one out-of-context fact - "copyright violation is NOTHING like theft" (thoughtfully provided by you) to justify illegal actions "i can do warez!" (otherwise they're whores, right?).
So why not call it the proper way, copyright infringement instead of saying "it is stealing" and simply implying and want people to draw the same conclusions as you do with theft of physical property?
I agree with you, they are two distinct things and people improperly equate them.
But the reason people equate them is to counter the pervasive indoctrination that since it "not the same as stealing" it's not really illegal and therefore one can do the P2P music/movie/warez thing without consequence.
All the slashdot lawyers screaming "it's not the same as stealing" usually try to get others to forget that Copyright violation is wrong, illegal and you can get in serious trouble for it.
Unfortunately you seem to have bought the line that copyright violation is somehow equivalent to theft. It isn't. It never has been. But if enough people like you refuse to exercise their brains concerning the matter and keep insisting that the two are one and the same, then some day they will be - at least legally
Both theft and copyright violation are illegal. People who engage in either activity can and are punished.
If a software company wants to produce something and only allow people to "rent" it, they should be able to do so. If people don't like those terms, they should avoid the product instead of engaging in illegal activity.
Does that make you feel better? Probably not because your posting implies you believe in a right to copyright violation just because you don't like the (perfectly legal) business model they use.
I don't advocate or have anything to do with closed source software, but I hate seeing whiney attempts to justify using things that don't belong to you. If you don't like the license, go find an alternative.
I sometimes think that the interaction of Linux and the GPL is lost on Sun.
They persist in talking about RedHat as if they could execute predatory behavior like Microsoft does. RedHat can try, but at some point the market will kick in and limit what they can get away with because customers will always have a choice (White Box, SuSE, etc.) and thus always have some leverage with RedHat. It's just a question of at what pricing pain point it will happen.
Teach a kid or two to program. Especially a disadvantaged kid. There are a lot of 10-15 year olds without anything good going on in their lives who need something to grab onto.