A politician has no business making decisions based on his morality. His job is to do what his constituents want, within the law, and to work to change the law to fit the will of his constituents.
Those two statements don't fit together. Bush's constituents want him to make decisions based on his morality.
One of the safeguards of a Constitutional Republic is that it lays out strict grounds rules as to what constitutes legitimate legislation and what does not. When you have a populace that doesn't understand how their government works, this system is a bit more safeguarded against whims being thrusted into legislation (in theory).
libjpeg is a pretty common library and I believe it should be always linked to dynamically. If libjpeg were around only because some other package (and really no other) depended upon it, it would then be best to link to it statically.
"We've fought in wars all over the world and never took any more ground than was necessary to bury our dead."
The free Market takes care of the economic side of imperialism.
That free market makes it very hard for American textile manufacturers to compete with Chinese prisoners.
I'm a more conservative type myself, and my feeling is that if people don't vigilantly elect to support their community and country themselves the nation is screwed anyways.
I have a very laissez faire attitude towards the government, but am very cynical about our nation being able to handle that freedom at this point.
Could you expound on your justification for focusing on the distributors (I'm assuming you mean sharers as opposed to downloaders). Is it the higher effectiveness of shutting down "dealers" over "buyers" that makes it a better choice?
My reason is primarily economic. The record industry wants to look at a stolen record or song as a loss. I may be a college student heavy into internet piracy. I can, at the most, 'steal' a couple of thousand dollars worth of content per year.
Let's say the new season of Enterprise starts coming out and I have HDTV. I start ripping each episode at high definition and seeding them with bittorrent. It may end up that, say, five hundred people out there end up with a duplication of the rip that I made. I've just been a two or three thousand dollar loss overnight.
Who stole the episode, the people that downloaded it or me who distributed it? We completed a data transaction together, and it sort of looks like the downloader did the "stealing," so in this case things look kind of blurry.
In my opinion, the one who seeded the file should be the one the content holders should pursue.
If I weren't dead tired I could put this together in a much more succinct and elegant fashion, but I hope my point comes through.
First of all, shame on the mods who slapped 'troll' on you for not conforming to slashthink.
So instead you want people to make this choice:
Windows - Everything you already use
Linux - Has none of the apps you already use
Looks like the decision is a no brainer to me.
Not really. Say Apache didn't run on Windows. Say Firefox didn't run on Windows. Say Gimp couldn't be run on Windows.
There are plenty more examples that support just the opposite of your argument--that Linux has everything you use, and Windows has nothing that you use.
I can write.pdf documents in Linux. Without paying Adobe 500$. Pretty cool, huh?
Copyright infringement isn't stealing, because the reason we can't go around stealing eachother's cars is that in doing so we deprive others of their possession.
What we're dealing with is unauthorized distribution of duplications. Yes, this is wrong and illegal, but it doesn't have the same consequences as stealing.
I'm not doing this just to be a pedantic prick, but when you talk about economics, you have to look at risks and concerns. A big risk in the existing record business is mass unchecked redistribution. When you call it 'stealing,' you put the focus on catching the crooks that are downloading songs (they're the 'thieves'). Instead, the focus should be on the people distributing the songs themselves.
I don't know about the privitization of this...I think it makes it too...hmm..what's the word - Republican.
Should they not be allowed to do it? If scientific research were limited to government funded research facilities then it is likely that research would just become even more of a battleground for politics than it is now.
At least consumers can decide whether or not this will continue, instead of voters. I would think that consumers would make a more educated decision, especially considering the cost of a ticket.
They're not liable if their distribution screws up your data, but their viability as a business is hingent on people trusting that they won't cause damage.
Their software does come with support, which implies accountability, which is what their customers are looking for anyway.
What Sun should do is restrict what projects can claim is "Java."
Meaning I could take Java and turn it into something completely different, and call it something else, but not change Java and keep the name anywhere in my project.
Say I have one x server that can do XComposite, and has a hardware accelerated graphics card. The other cannot do XComposite, and has no such acceleration.
Ok, if I run glxgears on server A, will it have dropshadows drawn around it's border, and run with hardware acceleration enabled? If I move that window over to the other screen, will it lose the hardware acceleration/dropshadows?
What if I move the window in between the two screens so half of it is on one screen, half is on the other?
It seems in some ways that the/dev/input setup in more recent Linux was a step backwards, towards a single user per computer.
Well, what you could do is make keyboards 'attachable' to terminals. Meaning, your first keyboard (let's call it keyboard0) is attached to every tty by default. You could use sysctl to attach keyboardX to ttyY, and connect arbitrary devices to arbitrary terminals.
I'm not a kernel hacker, but that seems like a reasonable solution from an end user standpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
A politician has no business making decisions based on his morality. His job is to do what his constituents want, within the law, and to work to change the law to fit the will of his constituents.
Those two statements don't fit together. Bush's constituents want him to make decisions based on his morality.
One of the safeguards of a Constitutional Republic is that it lays out strict grounds rules as to what constitutes legitimate legislation and what does not. When you have a populace that doesn't understand how their government works, this system is a bit more safeguarded against whims being thrusted into legislation (in theory).
libjpeg is a pretty common library and I believe it should be always linked to dynamically. If libjpeg were around only because some other package (and really no other) depended upon it, it would then be best to link to it statically.
The free Market takes care of the economic side of imperialism.
That free market makes it very hard for American textile manufacturers to compete with Chinese prisoners.
I'm a more conservative type myself, and my feeling is that if people don't vigilantly elect to support their community and country themselves the nation is screwed anyways.
I have a very laissez faire attitude towards the government, but am very cynical about our nation being able to handle that freedom at this point.
My reason is primarily economic. The record industry wants to look at a stolen record or song as a loss. I may be a college student heavy into internet piracy. I can, at the most, 'steal' a couple of thousand dollars worth of content per year.
Let's say the new season of Enterprise starts coming out and I have HDTV. I start ripping each episode at high definition and seeding them with bittorrent. It may end up that, say, five hundred people out there end up with a duplication of the rip that I made. I've just been a two or three thousand dollar loss overnight.
Who stole the episode, the people that downloaded it or me who distributed it? We completed a data transaction together, and it sort of looks like the downloader did the "stealing," so in this case things look kind of blurry.
In my opinion, the one who seeded the file should be the one the content holders should pursue.
If I weren't dead tired I could put this together in a much more succinct and elegant fashion, but I hope my point comes through.
Not to mention olive green. Yuck.
In my opinion, software should only link dynamically if they can expect the library to already be present.
First of all, shame on the mods who slapped 'troll' on you for not conforming to slashthink.
So instead you want people to make this choice:
Windows - Everything you already use
Linux - Has none of the apps you already use
Looks like the decision is a no brainer to me.
Not really. Say Apache didn't run on Windows. Say Firefox didn't run on Windows. Say Gimp couldn't be run on Windows.
There are plenty more examples that support just the opposite of your argument--that Linux has everything you use, and Windows has nothing that you use.
I can write .pdf documents in Linux. Without paying Adobe 500$. Pretty cool, huh?
Copyright infringement isn't stealing, because the reason we can't go around stealing eachother's cars is that in doing so we deprive others of their possession.
What we're dealing with is unauthorized distribution of duplications. Yes, this is wrong and illegal, but it doesn't have the same consequences as stealing.
I'm not doing this just to be a pedantic prick, but when you talk about economics, you have to look at risks and concerns. A big risk in the existing record business is mass unchecked redistribution. When you call it 'stealing,' you put the focus on catching the crooks that are downloading songs (they're the 'thieves'). Instead, the focus should be on the people distributing the songs themselves.
They are going to be shelling out the seven digits for this.
Should they not be allowed to do it? If scientific research were limited to government funded research facilities then it is likely that research would just become even more of a battleground for politics than it is now.
At least consumers can decide whether or not this will continue, instead of voters. I would think that consumers would make a more educated decision, especially considering the cost of a ticket.
Their software does come with support, which implies accountability, which is what their customers are looking for anyway.
Meaning I could take Java and turn it into something completely different, and call it something else, but not change Java and keep the name anywhere in my project.
Umm, I believe you meant modicum.
Nice post about a post about a forum about a meta-blog about a blog about a forum.
They way OS X is already, and the way Windows and Gnome are going, higher res won't mean more 'real estate' -- it'll just mean more crispness.
Besides, what do you think virtual desktops are for?
It would seem they would go hand in hand, since mails containing viruses often fail some spamassassin tests.
I've been using both sa and clamav for a few days, so I don't have a good real world test yet, but it's nice to see my tests bounce back.
If someone in Iran starts redistributing modified GPL code in violation of the GPL, you can't go after them.
How is that any different than the way things are now?
Do you really see a big-time software corporation springing up out of Iran overnight selling software that, to us, looks conspicuously like Linux?
I'm sure that the million downloads is mostly Windows users, as the rest of us have package management.
No, this is capitalism for you.
I don't know why it does in Windows--or why applications require that you restart after their initial installation.
I think the reason that rebooting is such a problem in Windows is because the culture around it has embraced rebooting as a catch-all solution.
When I used to run Windows, I never would let applications restart, and I rarely had problems with it. And that was in the Windows 98 days :)
Say I have one x server that can do XComposite, and has a hardware accelerated graphics card. The other cannot do XComposite, and has no such acceleration.
Ok, if I run glxgears on server A, will it have dropshadows drawn around it's border, and run with hardware acceleration enabled? If I move that window over to the other screen, will it lose the hardware acceleration/dropshadows?
What if I move the window in between the two screens so half of it is on one screen, half is on the other?
If I'm right, then they can discourage developers from writing code for FOSS software by scaring them away.
Well, what you could do is make keyboards 'attachable' to terminals. Meaning, your first keyboard (let's call it keyboard0) is attached to every tty by default. You could use sysctl to attach keyboardX to ttyY, and connect arbitrary devices to arbitrary terminals.
I'm not a kernel hacker, but that seems like a reasonable solution from an end user standpoint.
I think the parent was talking about thin clients, not running two x servers on one machine.