Just because you have no idea how Open Source works, doesn't mean you have The Answers.
The rest of us are getting along just fine without your mistaken insights.
It didn't appear to me that the label printing function had been touched by the developers at all between 2.4.0 and 3.0.0, with the exception of a native OS X print job dialog for the Mac version.
Folks, this is a supposedly mature, full-featured and commercial-quality office productivity application, published by one of the world's largest computer companies, yet one cannot do even such a basic task as printing labels from a database?
That's just inexcusible!
Here is the irrefutable evidence that you don't understand Open Source (and can't spell inexcusable). Clearly, the only people who care about printing labels are jerks like yourself who are uninterested in even reporting the bug, let alone contributing some code or other support to make it work. This is the point of Open Source.. the software is what *you* make it. Sure, someone else might be willing to write the code for you, but its up to you to let them know what you want and to provide some motivation for them to fix it. Whining on Slashdot is not such a way.
For a while, Opera was giving away their browser for Wii users. Now you have to pay if you want to access the Internet using your Wii, and Opera is your only choice. There's been some talk about Firefox on the Wii but, as far as I can tell, that's all it is: talk.
So yeah, buying a Wii (and most every other console) is just buying a pair of handcuffs.
Hopefully PCs will never ever be this locked down.
If the object isn't *in* the photograph then, no, it won't be able to model it. Otherwise, yes, it will be able to model occluded objects, just like a human can, because it has a lot of knowledge about what objects tend to look like.
The article is talking about high quality models, but he's not.. he's talking about low poly game models.
One day, computer vision will be so good that you can give it a single photograph, it'll grind away for a few minutes and create an entire 3d world containing every object in the photograph, a mesh of the terrain, etc. You'll load it up in your favourite 3d game and apples will act like apples and cars will act like cars, etc. You'll be able to feed a 100 minute film into a much bigger machine running a much more complicated collection of algorithms and it will automatically generate a 3d world where all the same events happen in the world as happened in the film. You can choose how you want to participate in the action and your actions will have consequences on the plot line that are dynamic and non-fragile.
And the last thing you will be thinking is "man, that car model has a few too many jaggy polygons in it."
Blah, there's is simply no law against downloading. It isn't a crime. It isn't even copyright infringement. If you want to introduce some bullshit "3 strikes and you're out" law, you have to actually introduce laws to make downloading a crime (or even copyright infringement) first, then you can try your extra stupid 3 strikes law.
If by "strike" you mean "being found guilty of some crime by a jury of your peers" then sure. But I don't think that's what the media companies have in mind.. considering that there are no laws which criminalize downloading of copyright restricted works - not even in France.
Nah. Haven't you seen the new Terminator tv series? All scientists are evil uncaring bastards who would happily help a robot into a bathtub of goo if they think they have cracked the formula for said goo and want to see if it works.
There's process to take care of that too. You can seek relief from an injunction. What you can't do is just ignore the order.. unless you're happy to spend some time in jail.
The court can't "overstep" anything. It's a court, it doesn't *do* anything, it just exists. The judge, on the other hand, may have overstepped his bounds but the court has a system for dealing with judges that overstep their bounds and that system is not "nah nah nah, I can't hear you!!" This dickwad just doesn't want to follow the process.
The crime is contempt of court.. and yes, it is one of the few crimes that carries a sentence that is 'indefinite'. That means that he is held until such time as he complies with the order of the court. So long as his web site is up, he will be in prison. As soon as he takes it down, they'll let him out. This is not exactly hard to understand, is it?
When the judge orders you to do something, you do it, or you go to jail until such time as you agree to do it.
That's the only way the court system can work. The judge decides, not you. If you want to appeal, fine, do that, *after* you've followed the judge's orders. Otherwise, why would any other judge even listen to your appeal? It's obvious you don't respect the authority of the court.
Well, you're right, I was simplifying too much. [..] Sorry. But if you don't like the law, campaign to change the law-- don't just steal shit. You just don't learn, do you?
no, you're not entitled to take Windows without paying Microsoft until their copyright expires. You're entitled to freedom.
In any case, your statement implies that it would somehow be legal for you to make a few copies of Windows so long as you send a check to Microsoft. That's not the case. We live in a world where copyright is regularly used to censor and create artificial scarcity. If the copyright holder refuses to sell you their product then you're just shit out of luck.
The only sensible definition of "abandonware" is when no-one will claim legal ownership of software. In that situation you can do whatever you want with the software because no-one is around to sue you. This is *clearly* not the case with XP.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you have no idea how Open Source works, doesn't mean you have The Answers.
The rest of us are getting along just fine without your mistaken insights.
It didn't appear to me that the label printing function had been touched by the developers at all between 2.4.0 and 3.0.0, with the exception of a native OS X print job dialog for the Mac version.Folks, this is a supposedly mature, full-featured and commercial-quality office productivity application, published by one of the world's largest computer companies, yet one cannot do even such a basic task as printing labels from a database?
That's just inexcusible!
Here is the irrefutable evidence that you don't understand Open Source (and can't spell inexcusable). Clearly, the only people who care about printing labels are jerks like yourself who are uninterested in even reporting the bug, let alone contributing some code or other support to make it work. This is the point of Open Source.. the software is what *you* make it. Sure, someone else might be willing to write the code for you, but its up to you to let them know what you want and to provide some motivation for them to fix it. Whining on Slashdot is not such a way.True, eating brains does take up most his day now.
News at 11.
Thanks for taking time out from your sordid sexual experimentation to post on Slashdot about it.
For a while, Opera was giving away their browser for Wii users. Now you have to pay if you want to access the Internet using your Wii, and Opera is your only choice. There's been some talk about Firefox on the Wii but, as far as I can tell, that's all it is: talk.
So yeah, buying a Wii (and most every other console) is just buying a pair of handcuffs.
Hopefully PCs will never ever be this locked down.
If the object isn't *in* the photograph then, no, it won't be able to model it. Otherwise, yes, it will be able to model occluded objects, just like a human can, because it has a lot of knowledge about what objects tend to look like.
The article is talking about high quality models, but he's not.. he's talking about low poly game models.
One day, computer vision will be so good that you can give it a single photograph, it'll grind away for a few minutes and create an entire 3d world containing every object in the photograph, a mesh of the terrain, etc. You'll load it up in your favourite 3d game and apples will act like apples and cars will act like cars, etc. You'll be able to feed a 100 minute film into a much bigger machine running a much more complicated collection of algorithms and it will automatically generate a 3d world where all the same events happen in the world as happened in the film. You can choose how you want to participate in the action and your actions will have consequences on the plot line that are dynamic and non-fragile.
And the last thing you will be thinking is "man, that car model has a few too many jaggy polygons in it."
They don't deserve to be owned. They deserve to have students who don't *want* to cheat.
I think you mean Australian gents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vda2RAEuW_g
Blah, there's is simply no law against downloading. It isn't a crime. It isn't even copyright infringement. If you want to introduce some bullshit "3 strikes and you're out" law, you have to actually introduce laws to make downloading a crime (or even copyright infringement) first, then you can try your extra stupid 3 strikes law.
If by "strike" you mean "being found guilty of some crime by a jury of your peers" then sure. But I don't think that's what the media companies have in mind.. considering that there are no laws which criminalize downloading of copyright restricted works - not even in France.
A newspaper copy writer is lining up against the wall to be shot.
His family will never mention his name again.
Nah. Haven't you seen the new Terminator tv series? All scientists are evil uncaring bastards who would happily help a robot into a bathtub of goo if they think they have cracked the formula for said goo and want to see if it works.
There's process to take care of that too. You can seek relief from an injunction. What you can't do is just ignore the order.. unless you're happy to spend some time in jail.
Ironically, many people are unaware that the civil rights movement was largely fought and won in the courts.
Sure, you can mount an appeal without following the judge's orders.. you just have to do it from jail as the reporters you mention have done.
He's not in solitary confinement...
idiot.
The court can't "overstep" anything. It's a court, it doesn't *do* anything, it just exists. The judge, on the other hand, may have overstepped his bounds but the court has a system for dealing with judges that overstep their bounds and that system is not "nah nah nah, I can't hear you!!" This dickwad just doesn't want to follow the process.
The crime is contempt of court.. and yes, it is one of the few crimes that carries a sentence that is 'indefinite'. That means that he is held until such time as he complies with the order of the court. So long as his web site is up, he will be in prison. As soon as he takes it down, they'll let him out. This is not exactly hard to understand, is it?
Do you believe everything you read or what? Every story has two sides.
When the judge orders you to do something, you do it, or you go to jail until such time as you agree to do it.
That's the only way the court system can work. The judge decides, not you. If you want to appeal, fine, do that, *after* you've followed the judge's orders. Otherwise, why would any other judge even listen to your appeal? It's obvious you don't respect the authority of the court.
[..]
Sorry. But if you don't like the law, campaign to change the law-- don't just steal shit. You just don't learn, do you?
In any case, your statement implies that it would somehow be legal for you to make a few copies of Windows so long as you send a check to Microsoft. That's not the case. We live in a world where copyright is regularly used to censor and create artificial scarcity. If the copyright holder refuses to sell you their product then you're just shit out of luck.
The only sensible definition of "abandonware" is when no-one will claim legal ownership of software. In that situation you can do whatever you want with the software because no-one is around to sue you. This is *clearly* not the case with XP.
cue "dirty bomb" meme in 3.. 2.. 1..