While I'm here, I'll note that the folks from Tom's Hardware tell me this article was the first of a series. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of it.
Working around a patent infringement by changing what you're doing so that you're not infringing any more is not underhanded; it's explicitly allowed, and even encouraged - because doing that is creating another invention. Just ask a patent attorney.
This is more typical Stallmanite extremism. With RMS, it's either his way or the highway, and he wraps himself in the flag of freedom to demonize those who disagree with him.
Fortunately, the majority of the computing world recognizes him for the blowhard he is.
That spells a permanent decline in the standard of living for programmers. Of course, that doesn't bother RMS, but it should bother those of us who don't want to live like ascetics.
The FSF makes this arguemnt all the time - but it blithely ignores that you'll only sell one copy, because it'll get given away or shared. You can't make money selling GPLed software.
And no, that's not what Red Hat, Novell, et al are doing. They're making money by building and packaging GPLed software.
Linus will never get the award. He doesn't drink the Stallmanite Kool-Aid. Stallman is too bitter over not getting to name Linus's OS, and that Linus doesn't hold the same dogmatic views as he does, to ever recognize Linus for anything - even though Linus has done more for his cause (not just the cause of Open Source, but the cause of so-called "free software") than anyone else alive.
They really should pick another term besides "free", since the one they picked is designed to confuse people...but then, they've been arguing by redefinition for a couple of decades, so why should they stop now?
Why is it that everyone but RMS and his slavish followers think there's a place for both open source and proprietary software in the world?
I'm not disagreeing that Tridge is deserving; it's just that the FSF chose to recognize him in part for work that advances their own political, anti-commercial agenda, and that is what I find offensive.
By congratulating Tridge in the way they did, the FSF shows that it is fundamentally hostile to the world of commercial software, period. This flies in the face of denials from its supporters that the FSF isn't anti-software business.
Tridge's work with Samba is certainly worthy of recognition. It's just the way in which the FSF chose to grant that recognition that I have a problem with.
Simple. It's not about content. It's about consent. Anyone can say anything they want, but they don't have the right to force it past my site policies that are designed to reject stuff I don't want.
Cory Doctorow and I have had this argument in person. He's so blinded by the free speech angle that he can't (or won't) see that spam is making email unusable.
The EFF has a long history of being on the wrong side of the spam problem. They showed their true colors when they joined spammers in their suit to overturn the laws designed to help stop spam.
When people ask me why I refuse to join the EFF, I just point at their spam policies.
I probably will get an interchangeable lens DSLR at some point. The E-10 is great, and I'll never sell it (sentimental reasons: I bought it at B&H Photo on the first day they were open after 9/11), but it only gets out to 35mm equivalent (I don't have the wide angle converter, and that's only good for 28mm anyway).
I think Olympus has missed the boat with the 4/3 system - nobody else is building hardware for it, despite their early plans - so I'll have to switch systems. (Olympus is on record as not planning to build a digital SLR with an OM-series mount, which means my extensive OM system is obsolete for that purpose.) I haven't decided whether to go with Canon or Nikon; Canon's lens selection will be more versatile, due to their shorter back focus distance, but my father has a fair amount of Nikon gear. In either case, though, I'll have to spend big bucks for a body with a 24x36 sensor, or else spend big bucks on a real wide (the 12-14mm lenses that do it for the small-sensor DSLRs ain't cheap either).
Okkay...so just what illuminates the scene so there will be an image on the LCD in the first place? If you need flash to take the picture, then you'll need that kind of light to see what you're doing, too - or if not that, you'll need at least some supplemental light. BTDT.
In any event, that it's an SLR is exactly why I bought it. SLRs have lots and lots of advantages, and being able to see what you're doing in any light the camera will make a picture in is just one of them.
The only reason I got the S410 is that the E-10 won't fit in my briefcase.
Leica will go under not because there are folks that make crap, but because the stuff they make is hideously expensive. Note that I didn't say overpriced, just hideously expensive. Priced an M6 lately? Or an R8? Yeah, their stuff is generally good, but it's an order of magnitude more expensive than the market will bear.
I have two digicams I use regularly these days: a Canon S410 and an Olympus E-10. Both work better in low light with the optical viewfinder than the LCD.
Slashdot Mirror
It was definitely III's F-1 that was used for a lot fo the CGI in TRON.
I sent the author a note pointing out the error. He agreed that they'd gotten it wrong.
Why, no, I can't.
Greetings, programs!
While I'm here, I'll note that the folks from Tom's Hardware tell me this article was the first of a series. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of it.
Working around a patent infringement by changing what you're doing so that you're not infringing any more is not underhanded; it's explicitly allowed, and even encouraged - because doing that is creating another invention. Just ask a patent attorney.
You can get a Treo (at least a 650) without a camera.
This is more typical Stallmanite extremism. With RMS, it's either his way or the highway, and he wraps himself in the flag of freedom to demonize those who disagree with him.
Fortunately, the majority of the computing world recognizes him for the blowhard he is.
That spells a permanent decline in the standard of living for programmers. Of course, that doesn't bother RMS, but it should bother those of us who don't want to live like ascetics.
The FSF makes this arguemnt all the time - but it blithely ignores that you'll only sell one copy, because it'll get given away or shared. You can't make money selling GPLed software.
And no, that's not what Red Hat, Novell, et al are doing. They're making money by building and packaging GPLed software.
Linus will never get the award. He doesn't drink the Stallmanite Kool-Aid. Stallman is too bitter over not getting to name Linus's OS, and that Linus doesn't hold the same dogmatic views as he does, to ever recognize Linus for anything - even though Linus has done more for his cause (not just the cause of Open Source, but the cause of so-called "free software") than anyone else alive.
They really should pick another term besides "free", since the one they picked is designed to confuse people...but then, they've been arguing by redefinition for a couple of decades, so why should they stop now?
Why is it that everyone but RMS and his slavish followers think there's a place for both open source and proprietary software in the world?
The FSF does nothing that is not political.
I'm not disagreeing that Tridge is deserving; it's just that the FSF chose to recognize him in part for work that advances their own political, anti-commercial agenda, and that is what I find offensive.
You didn't read my original message, did you? I said that Tridge is deserving of the award for his work on Samba.
McVoy was working with the open source community. Microsoft is not.
The open source community turned on McVoy. It never had a cooperative setup with Microsoft in the first place.
Larry McVoy was playing in a minefield by trusting the open source community to live up ti its commitments.
By congratulating Tridge in the way they did, the FSF shows that it is fundamentally hostile to the world of commercial software, period. This flies in the face of denials from its supporters that the FSF isn't anti-software business.
Tridge's work with Samba is certainly worthy of recognition. It's just the way in which the FSF chose to grant that recognition that I have a problem with.
This is the kind of thing investigators do all the time.
The problem with current laws is that they go after spammers. That approach is destined to fail.
Instead, you have to take advantage of the fact that, eventually, someone has to get money for the stuff being spammed. You go after those folks.
Simple. It's not about content. It's about consent. Anyone can say anything they want, but they don't have the right to force it past my site policies that are designed to reject stuff I don't want.
Cory Doctorow and I have had this argument in person. He's so blinded by the free speech angle that he can't (or won't) see that spam is making email unusable.
The EFF has a long history of being on the wrong side of the spam problem. They showed their true colors when they joined spammers in their suit to overturn the laws designed to help stop spam.
When people ask me why I refuse to join the EFF, I just point at their spam policies.
An Apple-Sun merger could have been good or terrible.
We could have had OS X on Sun hardware for years by now.
We could have had OS X based on Solaris.
Which is a bug and which is a feature is left as an exercise for the reader.
I probably will get an interchangeable lens DSLR at some point. The E-10 is great, and I'll never sell it (sentimental reasons: I bought it at B&H Photo on the first day they were open after 9/11), but it only gets out to 35mm equivalent (I don't have the wide angle converter, and that's only good for 28mm anyway).
I think Olympus has missed the boat with the 4/3 system - nobody else is building hardware for it, despite their early plans - so I'll have to switch systems. (Olympus is on record as not planning to build a digital SLR with an OM-series mount, which means my extensive OM system is obsolete for that purpose.) I haven't decided whether to go with Canon or Nikon; Canon's lens selection will be more versatile, due to their shorter back focus distance, but my father has a fair amount of Nikon gear. In either case, though, I'll have to spend big bucks for a body with a 24x36 sensor, or else spend big bucks on a real wide (the 12-14mm lenses that do it for the small-sensor DSLRs ain't cheap either).
Okkay...so just what illuminates the scene so there will be an image on the LCD in the first place? If you need flash to take the picture, then you'll need that kind of light to see what you're doing, too - or if not that, you'll need at least some supplemental light. BTDT.
It's a digital camera, isn't it?
In any event, that it's an SLR is exactly why I bought it. SLRs have lots and lots of advantages, and being able to see what you're doing in any light the camera will make a picture in is just one of them.
The only reason I got the S410 is that the E-10 won't fit in my briefcase.
Not gonna do it. I don't like Sony's propensity toward using proprietary, single-source storage media.
Leica will go under not because there are folks that make crap, but because the stuff they make is hideously expensive. Note that I didn't say overpriced, just hideously expensive. Priced an M6 lately? Or an R8? Yeah, their stuff is generally good, but it's an order of magnitude more expensive than the market will bear.
I have two digicams I use regularly these days: a Canon S410 and an Olympus E-10. Both work better in low light with the optical viewfinder than the LCD.