Cry me a river. It costs money to supply these updates ya know.. would you prefer "please enter your credit card?" Or do you just want Microsoft to suck up the cost. I know they can afford it, but it's a bit hard to justify that to their shareholders don't you think?
Nah, see, this isn't the way the public perception works. They have no imagination. You may scream that this stuff isn't secure but they're just going to say "no harm was done". If you want to get these things recognised as the danger to democracy that they are, you need to rig an election. Not to "prove it is possible" but simply to have something to say shouldn't have happened.
Shya. The public would go on a rampage alright.. to lynch hackers. That's the way it works. Hackers are the bad guys, the idiots who make software with big security holes in it because they can't practice well known techniques are the victims.
consider a highly advanced race of beings (not us...yet) that is in no way limited by lack of understanding, incompetence, or inability to comprehend, but rather solely by the laws of physics (i.e. the universe) as we now understand them according to body of our accumulated scientific knowledge. And that's why your argument is retarded. We don't know shit about the universe. We're beginners.
. If you do believe that our current understanding (not lack of current know how mind you, but understanding of the laws of physics) is seriously flawed, then the burden is upon you to prove that our current body of experimental evidence and theories are all bunk before we just throw out the bulk of the last few hundred years of science. No-one said they were bunk.. but every physicist knows that they're not playing with a full deck.
The only thing that keeps the voting system honest is *people* who care more about the accuracy of the results than whether or not a particular party wins. In other words: little old ladies, and they're not the ones pushing for these devices. They're perfectly happy to keep counting the slips of paper.
Other than the fact that scramjets have been under research for longer than fusion now and will continue to be forever because they're really interesting research topics and make for great research papers, but are mostly an enigma that we're unlikely to solve anytime soon.
I have an engineer friend who uses Outlook Express.. he complains about it endlessly. He's used Thunderbird before and thinks it is much better than Outlook Express. I ask him why he uses it and he says he just hasn't had time to install Thunderbird. Minutes of effort. Massive payoff. He doesn't make time. And he's got skills. People are stupid.
There would be an RFC for getting an email address for an ip address and it wouldn't take an expert to figure out how to contact the right person when you see a machine doing something it shouldn't.
No. Linus was saying that regardless of copyright law people should not do with software that which the programmer who writes that software would prefer them not to do. Specifically, he was talking about if people come to him and say they don't want their code in the kernel tree anymore, he will rip it out.. and that if people want to incorporate a driver in the kernel tree that they didn't write, they should track down the person who wrote it and ask them for permission first, even if that code is licensed under the GPL.
And yeah, I can go search the LKML archives for this stuff if you want.
Let's not forget that it also has Apple's brand name on it.. and Mac users are in love with Apple so they will go back to using Safari even if they find something better.
Sounds much like every Java app. A lot of GTK+ apps. On Mac: every app not written by Apple or Adobe (all 3 of them).
This is the reason why whenever people ask me what cross platform toolkit they should use I say: none. Write a GUI for each platform you want to support and use a common backend.. that way you are more likely to write a GUI that is suitable for the platform.
Of course, when they insist, I suggest they use Qt.
Theo is a good barometer. When he cracks, you know the pressure is too high.
I don't really like the metric of "idealism vs pragmatism". People always seem to put Linus on the pragmatic side of that gradient and Theo and the FSF on the idealistic side. Personally, I think Linus is just as idealistic as Theo.. just a different kind of idealistic. Linus has said things like "programmers get to decide what you can and cannot do with their code, and that's the way it should be" which is the kind of thing you'd expect Microsoft to say. On the other hand, the FSF is willing to place restrictions on what people can do to ensure the maximum freedom for everyone. That's a lot more pragmatic than it is idealistic.. which is why the GPL is often described as "pragmatic idealism". Theo, on the other hand, is willing to brow beat vendors until they give up specs so he can give people freedom. That kind of idealism is actually damaging.
For newer FOSS projects, it's not as hard. For most projects the "or later version" language is sufficient.
Personally, I would have preferred it if Linus never used the GPL. He only went with it to make some people happy, then he made exceptions to it. He would have been better off using something that was exactly what he wanted.
1. Fix the patent system, don't just come up with bullshit bandaids. This should require registering prototypes and reference implementations, like it did in the old days. 2. Make a good keyword searchable database for patents with an RSS feed for all the various categories so developers can remain up-to-date on the truly novel ideas that are being registered (as they all will be now, see step 1) 3. Encourage developers to remain abreast of the patents in the field, when they expire and how much they can license them for.
That's how we make the patent system work *for* us. And if we can't get it to work for us, then let's just get rid of it.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.google.com/trends?q=dog%2C+cat&ctab=0&
This is more shocking, dogs and cats living together!! (but dogs still more popular)
Cry me a river. It costs money to supply these updates ya know.. would you prefer "please enter your credit card?" Or do you just want Microsoft to suck up the cost. I know they can afford it, but it's a bit hard to justify that to their shareholders don't you think?
Nah, see, this isn't the way the public perception works. They have no imagination. You may scream that this stuff isn't secure but they're just going to say "no harm was done". If you want to get these things recognised as the danger to democracy that they are, you need to rig an election. Not to "prove it is possible" but simply to have something to say shouldn't have happened.
and their desire that only their customers have access to their updates.
Next up: "Please enter your credit card number" - Windows Update.
Shya. The public would go on a rampage alright.. to lynch hackers. That's the way it works. Hackers are the bad guys, the idiots who make software with big security holes in it because they can't practice well known techniques are the victims.
Talking about propulsion like we know what we're talking about, when we don't even understand where inertia comes from, is pretty stupid.
The only thing that keeps the voting system honest is *people* who care more about the accuracy of the results than whether or not a particular party wins. In other words: little old ladies, and they're not the ones pushing for these devices. They're perfectly happy to keep counting the slips of paper.
Other than the fact that scramjets have been under research for longer than fusion now and will continue to be forever because they're really interesting research topics and make for great research papers, but are mostly an enigma that we're unlikely to solve anytime soon.
I have an engineer friend who uses Outlook Express.. he complains about it endlessly. He's used Thunderbird before and thinks it is much better than Outlook Express. I ask him why he uses it and he says he just hasn't had time to install Thunderbird. Minutes of effort. Massive payoff. He doesn't make time. And he's got skills. People are stupid.
There would be an RFC for getting an email address for an ip address and it wouldn't take an expert to figure out how to contact the right person when you see a machine doing something it shouldn't.
Reality Distortion Field hard at work eh.
Whatever. Switching from KHTML to Gecko would be a good start.
The indian company they outsources the tech support or whatever to doesn't use Macs, shock.
No. Linus was saying that regardless of copyright law people should not do with software that which the programmer who writes that software would prefer them not to do. Specifically, he was talking about if people come to him and say they don't want their code in the kernel tree anymore, he will rip it out.. and that if people want to incorporate a driver in the kernel tree that they didn't write, they should track down the person who wrote it and ask them for permission first, even if that code is licensed under the GPL.
And yeah, I can go search the LKML archives for this stuff if you want.
Heh, they don't go back though.
Uhhh, if you don't think Theo is idealistic then you have a very different idea of idealism than the norm.
Let's not forget that it also has Apple's brand name on it.. and Mac users are in love with Apple so they will go back to using Safari even if they find something better.
Sounds much like every Java app. A lot of GTK+ apps. On Mac: every app not written by Apple or Adobe (all 3 of them).
This is the reason why whenever people ask me what cross platform toolkit they should use I say: none. Write a GUI for each platform you want to support and use a common backend.. that way you are more likely to write a GUI that is suitable for the platform.
Of course, when they insist, I suggest they use Qt.
Theo is a good barometer. When he cracks, you know the pressure is too high.
I don't really like the metric of "idealism vs pragmatism". People always seem to put Linus on the pragmatic side of that gradient and Theo and the FSF on the idealistic side. Personally, I think Linus is just as idealistic as Theo.. just a different kind of idealistic. Linus has said things like "programmers get to decide what you can and cannot do with their code, and that's the way it should be" which is the kind of thing you'd expect Microsoft to say. On the other hand, the FSF is willing to place restrictions on what people can do to ensure the maximum freedom for everyone. That's a lot more pragmatic than it is idealistic.. which is why the GPL is often described as "pragmatic idealism". Theo, on the other hand, is willing to brow beat vendors until they give up specs so he can give people freedom. That kind of idealism is actually damaging.
Personally, I would have preferred it if Linus never used the GPL. He only went with it to make some people happy, then he made exceptions to it. He would have been better off using something that was exactly what he wanted.
That's part of step 1 :)
1. Fix the patent system, don't just come up with bullshit bandaids. This should require registering prototypes and reference implementations, like it did in the old days.
2. Make a good keyword searchable database for patents with an RSS feed for all the various categories so developers can remain up-to-date on the truly novel ideas that are being registered (as they all will be now, see step 1)
3. Encourage developers to remain abreast of the patents in the field, when they expire and how much they can license them for.
That's how we make the patent system work *for* us. And if we can't get it to work for us, then let's just get rid of it.
Yeah, I know, but it isn't *required*.
Nuff said.