"It's a western set in space, a conceit I know some people didn't care for"
Personally, it's not the conceit I don't care for. I just don't care for westerns. I like SciFi, and watched a bunch of Firefly, but concluded it's not, as billed by some, a Sci-Fi Western. It's a Western. The props are Sci-fi, but the premises, stories and charachters are all western.
I've no problem with other people liking it. I just don't think you should expect others to if you are basing that expectation on whether they like Trek or Babylon 5. It would be more relevant to ask if they liked Bonanza or The Magnificent Seven.
The population-weighted average standard of living of the world is significantly higher today than it has been in the past, why should it not be higher still in the future?
Suicide seems preferable?!? Personally I'd rather sleep in the rain than die, but to each his own. Not that I expect to be sleeping in the rain anyway, as standards of living equalizing out is not something I expect in my lifetime, and even the poorest people in the world typically manage shelter.
Your "race-to-the-bottom feedback loop" sure sounds scary. Of course, since I can't think of a single historical example of a sustained decline in standard of living, for that reason or any other, I've got to say it would be a lot scarier if I thought it existed outside your head.
Of course he does. If he had a clue what he wanted to do with himself, he'd have a job or a Phd. Not knowing what to do with yourself is the whole reason to get a Masters in the first place.
When I've been involved in hiring, I've concluded that upon getting a bachelors people fall into three categories: Those who are excited about doing deep research in something go for a PhD. Those who are excited about begining their career in a particular area enter the work force. Those who don't really know what they want to do with themselves get a Masters. (And apparently, after that they still don't know what they want to do, so they ask Slashdot.)
Obviously it's not a hard and fast rule, so don't jump on me just because you have a Masters; you might be quite competent. But generally I find a Masters is a bad sign.
"GIS Data" is a fantastically broad term (any data with a spatial component), and basically a useless distinction in deciding if data is sensitive... I'm pretty sure whatever Greenwich didn't want to share is not what you think, as all the examples on your list are publicly available already, mostly from the US Census for the cost of reproduction & shipping. The article doesn't make it clear what the data in question was; On the other hand, I'm not sure what Greenwich even could have that would be sensitive.
As taxpayers, we pay for a lot of things we may or may not have access to or even any use for at all. In the case of the Census however, some quick googling will reveal that you can download it and use it to your hearts content. By the way, why free only for non-comercial use? Companies pay taxes too.
I do not believe we ought to wait until it is happening on an every day basis before getting worked up about it.
Jose Padilla is an American citizen. He has been in prison for three years now. He has not been charged with anything; no evidence against him has been presented. He has been "linked to" terrorism only to the extent that the executive branch has said he is. No evidence has been presented supporting this, because, according to the administration, they can imprison him indefinitely based entirely on their say-so, without involving the courts in any way.
Note that I am not suggesting that Padilla is a nice guy, or that I know he is innocent. In fact, I know basically nothing of the facts of his case, as they have never been presented. Please do not tell me "But he's a terrorist!", because the only reason you think so is because the administration says so. They've been quite happy to say so in front of the press, and entirely unwilling to say so under oath in front of a Judge.
Imprisoning him in this manner is not legal. The Constitution is not vauge on this point. The fifth amendment says: "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." You can look it up yourself, but I assure you that my elipsis above do not exclude a clause that says "Unless you use the magic 't' word".
I think you meant that the level of dissent is directly proportional to the level of civil rights, as opposed to inversely. In any case, you seem to imply that having strong civil rights causes loud protests from people who think those rights are in danger. I suggest to you that the causitive relationship goes the other way.
As far as the poster who suggested the US should not be criticizing Vietnams human rights record, obviously he has little sense of proportion, or little idea of the state of human rights in Vietnam. Human rights are in much better shape in the US. But to you I say, I like it that way, so I'm sure as hell going to get pissed about the wholesale elimination of those rights currently taking place.
The US Constitution, the treaties we have signed, and our laws are not general guidelines. They are strict rules. They are all that protect our freedom from a slow slide into totalitarianism. Even if these rules are inconvenient, allowing the administration to simply ignore them is dangerous. The actual ignoring itself is illegal, and should be the subject of criminal prosecution.
The sun won't go nova, it's too small. But it will reach some sort of transition rendering it unsuitable for supporting us as we are now. Assuming that when that transition comes, we are still around, and still need a sun-like star to survive, we will need to spread beyond the solar system. THe sooner we start spreading out, the more resources we expend on expansion that won't actually save us. Resources that would be better spent on inventing the super-dooper-hyperdrive, and on protecting Earth until we do. Colonizing Mars would be really cool, but species-survival wise, it's a distraction.
I'm not sure what you beleive to be the difference between asteroids and meteorites, but it is not what you think.
An asteroid is a (non-planet) rock that orbits the sun. An asteroid cannot hit the Earth, because upon entering the atmosphere it ceases to be an asteroid and becomes a meteor (along with any other rocks entering our atmosphere from space, whether originaly sun-orbiting or not). Meteorites are meteors which have already hit the ground, and thus they are unlikely to blacken the sky unless people take to hurling them back up in the air again.
"You know the old saying about putting all your eggs in one basket..."
You mean, "Put all your eggs in one basket, and WATCH THAT BASKET"? It is possible we have a better chance of long term survival by not trying to colonize other bodies, and instead spending the money on protecting Earth. Earth is just so fantastically better suited as a place for humans to live than anything else we can even think about getting to that I suspect this is the best strategy in the near term. I just don't see an extra-terrestrial colony being fully self-sufficient if all support from Earth was gone. I do see the money a colony would cost buying a most excellent meteor defense.
Well, I thank you for the apology, though it might be better not to have done it in the first place, and you have in any case insulted my inteligence in practically every post. I beleive I have largely refrained from responding in kind, but for the couple exceptions, I too will apologize.
As to the original argument about whether it was natural to assume Google and Time Warner are both in some category that doesn't include numerous bigger companies in more closely related businesses. Yes, well, you are still wrong about that, but that discussion had effectively ended. You had descended to suggesting nonsensical justifications for why that grouping would make more sense to you and not me, without offering any idea of why in fact it did make sense. If you really wish to continue that discussion, please explain to me why Google and TW are so obviously more closely related to each other than either is to MS that such a grouping should simply be assumed. Feel free to spell it out in detail, for it is genuinely a mystery to me.
I did focus on your use of "metonymical", because misuse of words is something of a pet peeve of mine. While I enjoy obscure words, misuse of them particularly ticks me off when it seems apparent to me that their obscurity is intentional. Perhaps that obscurity was not intentional, and you have been using "metonymical" regularly. In that case, I trust you will thank me for pointing out that you have been using it incorrectly.
Hmmm, who was it that accused someone of continuing to argue just for the sake of being right, even though they were wrong?
Thank you for your advice to use a dictionary, but I keep a dictionary in reach at practically all times. I have not heard a word I didn't know and failed to look it up in the last three decades. My own spelling is rather poor, and so I have only critiqued your spelling in a single instance, and only as a side note to pointing out your misuse of the word you misspelled. I don't particularly care if your spelling or grammar is any good. However, when someone tries to impress me by showing off their big vocabulary, they'd best get it right if they don't want to get called on it.
I may be refered to by nouns or by figures of speach, but I am not that noun or figure of speach. A trope is the figure of speach itself; it is the words, not what they refer to; it is the words themselves that may or may not refer to something metonymically. That which is thus refered to cannot itself be metonymical, unless it also is a figure of speach.
You corrections to my grammar were largely incorrect, but I saw little point in widening this discussion. I did in fact find it ironic that you argued for raising the level of discussion only after calling me a dickhead. I assumed your post was not meant to point out this irony, as that would be, in effect, pointing out that you are a vulgar idiot. If that was in fact your intent, well then, I concur whole-heartedly.
In any case, rather than calling me childish, and me calling you an idiot, let us indeed stick to the argument at hand: You do not, or did not, understand the meaning of the word "metonymical". Perhaps you disagree, and in that case please explain: Why you were suggesting I might think I was a figure of speach using the name of one thing to refer to something else?
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I object to the use of a wide vocabulary. Quite the opposite. Proper use of the correct word is to be aplauded, and if you reach beyond your readers vocabulary, he should see it as an oportunity to expand that vocabulary.
In this particular case, it seemed clear (and your latest post cements the case) you reached beyond your own vocabulary in an attempt to intentionaly reach beyond mine. As it happened, you failed. I was already aware of "metonym", the root of "metonymical", the latter being the word you misspelled and continue to misuse. You asked if I thought I was "metanymical"
"Metonymy is, broadly defined, a trope in which..."
A trope is a figure of speach. "metonymical" is an adjective that can only be properly applied to a figure of speach. I am not a figure of speach, and cannot possibly be metonymical.
Your second reply at this level is most pompous. So glad you are here trying to elevate the discussion to your own lofty level. I really appreciate your shining example. Allow me to set about attempting to emulate it immediately, dickhead.
"Do you really expect luddite social-activist types to actually understand what it is that they are protesting against?"
More than I expect slashdot posters to understand what they are posting about.
The protesters may or may not be luddites, and may or may not understand what they are protesting about. But it is Eddie Bauer that dubbed these pants "nano", or maybe the company ("Nano-Tex") that makes the coating they used. It is not clear to me how much actual nano-tech is involved ("nano-tech" being a somewhat vauge, and frequently mis-used term) or if said company just thinks "nano" sounds better than "chemical-compound-whose-possible-toxicity-we-have -basicaly-no-data-on".
I'd guess some of the protesters mostly just like protesting, but that some of them are genuinely concerned about something they've spent considerably more time researching than you.
Strangers who wave their arms about and shout stuff at you emphatically are almost always just crazy. But sometimes they are shouting "Hey, watch out for that bus!"
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 1
Contrary to apparent popular belief, code opened under the BSD license can not be closed by a third party. New, modified code can be closed, but the original is still open.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"An who do you think are more important? Users (vast majority) or developers?"
Me.
"If fact GPL (and similar) leverages users to the developer's level" The GPL will not make someone a developer who is not. Compared to BSD, it will prevent some developers from being more than users.
Maybe I am really dumb, and you are smart. On the other hand, I don't try to look smart by using big words without knowing how they are spelled, or for that matter what they mean. Unless, of course, you can explain how it is even possible for a person to be metonymical. Unless of course you meant "metronymical", in which case I don't understand the relevance, but in any case, I assure you I have poor rhythm.
How dare MS give beta software away free! Damn bastards. This does sound just like IE. I mean look what happened there; sure they gave it away free until Nescape died, but now look at the price!
Have you used Mac support? Most tech support seems to take as their goal figuring out why they don't have to help you; Apple support actually seems to consider helping you an acceptable, even desirable outcome. I'm assuming I'd be calling them on a clear-cut hardware issue, and that I'd be able to dual-boot back to OSX. My real point is that with any computer maker other than Apple, I would never, ever bother calling their tech-support line. I can think of no cicumstance where I would imagine it might be productive to do so.
Weird case shapes and designs can kill upgradeability, true. Last time I did a really significant upgrade to an existing box rather than getting a whole new one? Early 90s. Though in support of your point, it was a Mac and a hacksaw was involved. These days I'm partial to laptops anyway.
If Mac makes PC-equivalent hardware, they won't have a monopoly on it, nor do I think that's what's responsible for their current high prices. Rather, it is that they only sell high quality hardware. You can't get an el-cheapo no-name box that runs their OS. And you still won't be able to. But I don't want an el-cheapo anyway.
I'm not saying I'll imediately run out and buy an Intel Mac. Just that even for a box to run Windows on, I expect they'll be definitely worth considering, and I welcome their addition to my choices.
A bus doesn't necessarily go where I want, and the taxi isn't waiting in my driveway all the time. I guess a limo with chaufer would be the closest analogue. I guess it's a good sign for my argument that what my metaphor says is the ideal car is very similar to what people who can afford it do in fact use.
That was my first post in this thread, so I wasn't "still" wrong, nor defending myself for the sake of being right. Now to continue being right for the sake of enlightening the ignorant:
Sure, MS is the market leader in OS's, I'll agree with that even if you don't specify how you're measuring "leader". You have, however, specified what they are the leader in: OS's.
The headline in dispute says Google has overtaken Time Warner for the top spot. Leaving it at that would be absolutely fine if it were obvious what the "top spot" in question refered to. It is not only inobvious, it is obscure, and now that I've taken the time to figure it out, I say it is bogus to boot. Apparently, Google now has the "top spot" instead of Time Warner in a particular category. It is this category I feel is inobvious, obscure, and even bogus. It is unreasonable of the headline author to think everyone will assume that the natural way to categorize companies groups together Google and Time Warner, but not Microsoft (who's market cap is seveal times that of Google and TW put together.)
Next Headline: Slashdot is the top website in the world! (no need to mention the obvious fact that this is only amongst sites named after punctuation)
Obviously we don't know any specs, but based on their history it seems likely an Intel based box put together by Apple will feature specs roughly equivalent to the high-end available from other makers. But it will have two things that set it apart from those others: a prettier box, and support that is actually worth your time to call if you have a problem.
"What happens when a user makes a typo when entering meta data for associating files with a project?"
If this is done right, I won't make a typo, because I won't type. I'll drag the files into the folder for that project, presumably holding some meta-key that means "cross-index" much as holding one currently means "copy". Or something like that. If I have to type in keywords, this is useless.
Frankly, anyone who want's to reduce the amount of knowledge/thought needed to use a computer has my encouragement. It's not that I'm a stupid user who won't learn anything about an OS; I've learned stuff well into the power-user realm on Windows, MacOS, AIX, DOS, and whatever the Apple IIe used. Quite enough of my brain is occupied with knowing how various OSes want me to do things; I've better uses for the rest of it.
If cars were made to be safe and effective, yet not need any training to operate, that would be GREAT. I don't think the ideal car would be controlled by a single joystick; rather I would tell it where I want to go, then do something else while it drives there.
"So when did C++ start running on bare hardware? Every time I've run it, I needed an OS and a huge pile of libraries."
It compiles to machine code that runs on (relatively) bare hardware. It calls OS and library functions that also run on relatively bare hardware.
"Is there something inherently worse or different about loading a VM than loading libraries?"
Worse? Depends. Different? Definitely. A VM and a library are not comparable things. In terms of performance, running on a VM is worse than "bare hardware". In terms of platform-independence, it's better.
Java is definitely more portable than C++. "Run the first time" is still unlikely in my experience, but whoever says C++ is "fully portable" has never ported anything of significance. If you want to write the same thing for Windows and AIX, Java is obviously the way to go. If like me, you're very concerned about performance, and rate the chances of wanting to ever port to another platform as somewhere between slim and none, C++ is clearly superior.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's a western set in space, a conceit I know some people didn't care for"
Personally, it's not the conceit I don't care for. I just don't care for westerns. I like SciFi, and watched a bunch of Firefly, but concluded it's not, as billed by some, a Sci-Fi Western. It's a Western. The props are Sci-fi, but the premises, stories and charachters are all western.
I've no problem with other people liking it. I just don't think you should expect others to if you are basing that expectation on whether they like Trek or Babylon 5. It would be more relevant to ask if they liked Bonanza or The Magnificent Seven.
The population-weighted average standard of living of the world is significantly higher today than it has been in the past, why should it not be higher still in the future?
Suicide seems preferable?!? Personally I'd rather sleep in the rain than die, but to each his own. Not that I expect to be sleeping in the rain anyway, as standards of living equalizing out is not something I expect in my lifetime, and even the poorest people in the world typically manage shelter.
Your "race-to-the-bottom feedback loop" sure sounds scary. Of course, since I can't think of a single historical example of a sustained decline in standard of living, for that reason or any other, I've got to say it would be a lot scarier if I thought it existed outside your head.
That was my car.
Well, if it was in Colorado ~5 years ago it was. I have certain knowledge I'm not the only one to think of it.
Of course he does. If he had a clue what he wanted to do with himself, he'd have a job or a Phd. Not knowing what to do with yourself is the whole reason to get a Masters in the first place.
When I've been involved in hiring, I've concluded that upon getting a bachelors people fall into three categories:
Those who are excited about doing deep research in something go for a PhD.
Those who are excited about begining their career in a particular area enter the work force.
Those who don't really know what they want to do with themselves get a Masters. (And apparently, after that they still don't know what they want to do, so they ask Slashdot.)
Obviously it's not a hard and fast rule, so don't jump on me just because you have a Masters; you might be quite competent. But generally I find a Masters is a bad sign.
"GIS Data" is a fantastically broad term (any data with a spatial component), and basically a useless distinction in deciding if data is sensitive... I'm pretty sure whatever Greenwich didn't want to share is not what you think, as all the examples on your list are publicly available already, mostly from the US Census for the cost of reproduction & shipping.
The article doesn't make it clear what the data in question was; On the other hand, I'm not sure what Greenwich even could have that would be sensitive.
As taxpayers, we pay for a lot of things we may or may not have access to or even any use for at all. In the case of the Census however, some quick googling will reveal that you can download it and use it to your hearts content. By the way, why free only for non-comercial use? Companies pay taxes too.
I do not believe we ought to wait until it is happening on an every day basis before getting worked up about it.
... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."
Jose Padilla is an American citizen. He has been in prison for three years now. He has not been charged with anything; no evidence against him has been presented. He has been "linked to" terrorism only to the extent that the executive branch has said he is. No evidence has been presented supporting this, because, according to the administration, they can imprison him indefinitely based entirely on their say-so, without involving the courts in any way.
Note that I am not suggesting that Padilla is a nice guy, or that I know he is innocent. In fact, I know basically nothing of the facts of his case, as they have never been presented. Please do not tell me "But he's a terrorist!", because the only reason you think so is because the administration says so. They've been quite happy to say so in front of the press, and entirely unwilling to say so under oath in front of a Judge.
Imprisoning him in this manner is not legal. The Constitution is not vauge on this point. The fifth amendment says:
"No person shall be
You can look it up yourself, but I assure you that my elipsis above do not exclude a clause that says "Unless you use the magic 't' word".
I think you meant that the level of dissent is directly proportional to the level of civil rights, as opposed to inversely. In any case, you seem to imply that having strong civil rights causes loud protests from people who think those rights are in danger. I suggest to you that the causitive relationship goes the other way.
As far as the poster who suggested the US should not be criticizing Vietnams human rights record, obviously he has little sense of proportion, or little idea of the state of human rights in Vietnam. Human rights are in much better shape in the US. But to you I say, I like it that way, so I'm sure as hell going to get pissed about the wholesale elimination of those rights currently taking place.
The US Constitution, the treaties we have signed, and our laws are not general guidelines. They are strict rules. They are all that protect our freedom from a slow slide into totalitarianism. Even if these rules are inconvenient, allowing the administration to simply ignore them is dangerous. The actual ignoring itself is illegal, and should be the subject of criminal prosecution.
The sun won't go nova, it's too small. But it will reach some sort of transition rendering it unsuitable for supporting us as we are now. Assuming that when that transition comes, we are still around, and still need a sun-like star to survive, we will need to spread beyond the solar system. THe sooner we start spreading out, the more resources we expend on expansion that won't actually save us. Resources that would be better spent on inventing the super-dooper-hyperdrive, and on protecting Earth until we do.
Colonizing Mars would be really cool, but species-survival wise, it's a distraction.
I'm not sure what you beleive to be the difference between asteroids and meteorites, but it is not what you think.
An asteroid is a (non-planet) rock that orbits the sun. An asteroid cannot hit the Earth, because upon entering the atmosphere it ceases to be an asteroid and becomes a meteor (along with any other rocks entering our atmosphere from space, whether originaly sun-orbiting or not). Meteorites are meteors which have already hit the ground, and thus they are unlikely to blacken the sky unless people take to hurling them back up in the air again.
"You know the old saying about putting all your eggs in one basket..."
You mean, "Put all your eggs in one basket, and WATCH THAT BASKET"? It is possible we have a better chance of long term survival by not trying to colonize other bodies, and instead spending the money on protecting Earth. Earth is just so fantastically better suited as a place for humans to live than anything else we can even think about getting to that I suspect this is the best strategy in the near term. I just don't see an extra-terrestrial colony being fully self-sufficient if all support from Earth was gone. I do see the money a colony would cost buying a most excellent meteor defense.
Well, I thank you for the apology, though it might be better not to have done it in the first place, and you have in any case insulted my inteligence in practically every post. I beleive I have largely refrained from responding in kind, but for the couple exceptions, I too will apologize.
As to the original argument about whether it was natural to assume Google and Time Warner are both in some category that doesn't include numerous bigger companies in more closely related businesses. Yes, well, you are still wrong about that, but that discussion had effectively ended. You had descended to suggesting nonsensical justifications for why that grouping would make more sense to you and not me, without offering any idea of why in fact it did make sense. If you really wish to continue that discussion, please explain to me why Google and TW are so obviously more closely related to each other than either is to MS that such a grouping should simply be assumed. Feel free to spell it out in detail, for it is genuinely a mystery to me.
I did focus on your use of "metonymical", because misuse of words is something of a pet peeve of mine. While I enjoy obscure words, misuse of them particularly ticks me off when it seems apparent to me that their obscurity is intentional. Perhaps that obscurity was not intentional, and you have been using "metonymical" regularly. In that case, I trust you will thank me for pointing out that you have been using it incorrectly.
That is not a double negative, the negatives apply to different things.
Hmmm, who was it that accused someone of continuing to argue just for the sake of being right, even though they were wrong?
Thank you for your advice to use a dictionary, but I keep a dictionary in reach at practically all times. I have not heard a word I didn't know and failed to look it up in the last three decades. My own spelling is rather poor, and so I have only critiqued your spelling in a single instance, and only as a side note to pointing out your misuse of the word you misspelled. I don't particularly care if your spelling or grammar is any good. However, when someone tries to impress me by showing off their big vocabulary, they'd best get it right if they don't want to get called on it.
I may be refered to by nouns or by figures of speach, but I am not that noun or figure of speach. A trope is the figure of speach itself; it is the words, not what they refer to; it is the words themselves that may or may not refer to something metonymically. That which is thus refered to cannot itself be metonymical, unless it also is a figure of speach.
You corrections to my grammar were largely incorrect, but I saw little point in widening this discussion. I did in fact find it ironic that you argued for raising the level of discussion only after calling me a dickhead. I assumed your post was not meant to point out this irony, as that would be, in effect, pointing out that you are a vulgar idiot. If that was in fact your intent, well then, I concur whole-heartedly.
In any case, rather than calling me childish, and me calling you an idiot, let us indeed stick to the argument at hand: You do not, or did not, understand the meaning of the word "metonymical". Perhaps you disagree, and in that case please explain: Why you were suggesting I might think I was a figure of speach using the name of one thing to refer to something else?
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I object to the use of a wide vocabulary. Quite the opposite. Proper use of the correct word is to be aplauded, and if you reach beyond your readers vocabulary, he should see it as an oportunity to expand that vocabulary.
In this particular case, it seemed clear (and your latest post cements the case) you reached beyond your own vocabulary in an attempt to intentionaly reach beyond mine. As it happened, you failed. I was already aware of "metonym", the root of "metonymical", the latter being the word you misspelled and continue to misuse. You asked if I thought I was "metanymical"
"Metonymy is, broadly defined, a trope in which..."
A trope is a figure of speach. "metonymical" is an adjective that can only be properly applied to a figure of speach. I am not a figure of speach, and cannot possibly be metonymical.
Your second reply at this level is most pompous. So glad you are here trying to elevate the discussion to your own lofty level. I really appreciate your shining example. Allow me to set about attempting to emulate it immediately, dickhead.
"Do you really expect luddite social-activist types to actually understand what it is that they are protesting against?"
e -basicaly-no-data-on".
More than I expect slashdot posters to understand what they are posting about.
The protesters may or may not be luddites, and may or may not understand what they are protesting about. But it is Eddie Bauer that dubbed these pants "nano", or maybe the company ("Nano-Tex") that makes the coating they used. It is not clear to me how much actual nano-tech is involved ("nano-tech" being a somewhat vauge, and frequently mis-used term) or if said company just thinks "nano" sounds better than "chemical-compound-whose-possible-toxicity-we-hav
I'd guess some of the protesters mostly just like protesting, but that some of them are genuinely concerned about something they've spent considerably more time researching than you.
Strangers who wave their arms about and shout stuff at you emphatically are almost always just crazy. But sometimes they are shouting "Hey, watch out for that bus!"
Contrary to apparent popular belief, code opened under the BSD license can not be closed by a third party. New, modified code can be closed, but the original is still open.
"An who do you think are more important? Users (vast majority) or developers?"
Me.
"If fact GPL (and similar) leverages users to the developer's level"
The GPL will not make someone a developer who is not. Compared to BSD, it will prevent some developers from being more than users.
Maybe I am really dumb, and you are smart. On the other hand, I don't try to look smart by using big words without knowing how they are spelled, or for that matter what they mean. Unless, of course, you can explain how it is even possible for a person to be metonymical. Unless of course you meant "metronymical", in which case I don't understand the relevance, but in any case, I assure you I have poor rhythm.
How dare MS give beta software away free! Damn bastards. This does sound just like IE. I mean look what happened there; sure they gave it away free until Nescape died, but now look at the price!
Have you used Mac support? Most tech support seems to take as their goal figuring out why they don't have to help you; Apple support actually seems to consider helping you an acceptable, even desirable outcome. I'm assuming I'd be calling them on a clear-cut hardware issue, and that I'd be able to dual-boot back to OSX. My real point is that with any computer maker other than Apple, I would never, ever bother calling their tech-support line. I can think of no cicumstance where I would imagine it might be productive to do so.
Weird case shapes and designs can kill upgradeability, true. Last time I did a really significant upgrade to an existing box rather than getting a whole new one? Early 90s. Though in support of your point, it was a Mac and a hacksaw was involved. These days I'm partial to laptops anyway.
If Mac makes PC-equivalent hardware, they won't have a monopoly on it, nor do I think that's what's responsible for their current high prices. Rather, it is that they only sell high quality hardware. You can't get an el-cheapo no-name box that runs their OS. And you still won't be able to. But I don't want an el-cheapo anyway.
I'm not saying I'll imediately run out and buy an Intel Mac. Just that even for a box to run Windows on, I expect they'll be definitely worth considering, and I welcome their addition to my choices.
A bus doesn't necessarily go where I want, and the taxi isn't waiting in my driveway all the time. I guess a limo with chaufer would be the closest analogue. I guess it's a good sign for my argument that what my metaphor says is the ideal car is very similar to what people who can afford it do in fact use.
That was my first post in this thread, so I wasn't "still" wrong, nor defending myself for the sake of being right. Now to continue being right for the sake of enlightening the ignorant:
Sure, MS is the market leader in OS's, I'll agree with that even if you don't specify how you're measuring "leader". You have, however, specified what they are the leader in: OS's.
The headline in dispute says Google has overtaken Time Warner for the top spot. Leaving it at that would be absolutely fine if it were obvious what the "top spot" in question refered to. It is not only inobvious, it is obscure, and now that I've taken the time to figure it out, I say it is bogus to boot. Apparently, Google now has the "top spot" instead of Time Warner in a particular category. It is this category I feel is inobvious, obscure, and even bogus. It is unreasonable of the headline author to think everyone will assume that the natural way to categorize companies groups together Google and Time Warner, but not Microsoft (who's market cap is seveal times that of Google and TW put together.)
Next Headline: Slashdot is the top website in the world! (no need to mention the obvious fact that this is only amongst sites named after punctuation)
Obviously we don't know any specs, but based on their history it seems likely an Intel based box put together by Apple will feature specs roughly equivalent to the high-end available from other makers. But it will have two things that set it apart from those others: a prettier box, and support that is actually worth your time to call if you have a problem.
"What happens when a user makes a typo when entering meta data for associating files with a project?"
If this is done right, I won't make a typo, because I won't type. I'll drag the files into the folder for that project, presumably holding some meta-key that means "cross-index" much as holding one currently means "copy". Or something like that. If I have to type in keywords, this is useless.
Frankly, anyone who want's to reduce the amount of knowledge/thought needed to use a computer has my encouragement. It's not that I'm a stupid user who won't learn anything about an OS; I've learned stuff well into the power-user realm on Windows, MacOS, AIX, DOS, and whatever the Apple IIe used. Quite enough of my brain is occupied with knowing how various OSes want me to do things; I've better uses for the rest of it.
If cars were made to be safe and effective, yet not need any training to operate, that would be GREAT. I don't think the ideal car would be controlled by a single joystick; rather I would tell it where I want to go, then do something else while it drives there.
"So when did C++ start running on bare hardware? Every time I've run it, I needed an OS and a huge pile of libraries."
It compiles to machine code that runs on (relatively) bare hardware. It calls OS and library functions that also run on relatively bare hardware.
"Is there something inherently worse or different about loading a VM than loading libraries?"
Worse? Depends. Different? Definitely. A VM and a library are not comparable things. In terms of performance, running on a VM is worse than "bare hardware". In terms of platform-independence, it's better.
Java is definitely more portable than C++. "Run the first time" is still unlikely in my experience, but whoever says C++ is "fully portable" has never ported anything of significance. If you want to write the same thing for Windows and AIX, Java is obviously the way to go. If like me, you're very concerned about performance, and rate the chances of wanting to ever port to another platform as somewhere between slim and none, C++ is clearly superior.