Actually, no it doesn't demonstrate that at all. Don't like the licesne change? Fork the version before the license change. That's exactly what happened here. If anything, this shows that the arguments for the GPL are nowhere near as strong as people think.
Besides, you forget that this was not so much about the license change as it was about the underlying leadership issues. You do know that the new license was removed from all files that would have caused incompatibility with GPL X programs right?
Yup, they pretty much don't have any clue why alcohol is benificial to heart disease. From the abstracts most of the standard indicators are unaffected by drinking. I included the fourth one to be balanced.:) Obviously alcohol has negative effects.
An interesting question would be, do you need to drink throughout your life to get the benifits when you are old? Or only when you are old? If they can isolate what is causing the good effects they might also be able to make a drug that has those effects minus the negative effects of alcohol.
More study *is* needed.:) But oddly there is a real benifit from drinking, and some (many) real negatives. Maybe the good stuff isn't worth the risk, but hell, I like drinking.;)
To be fair though, alcohol also has negative health effects in addition to the positive effects. I personally find that even one drink the night before a workout has a noticable impact.
The orignal poster was likely referring to significant negative effects of alcohol. Most people can drink 2 standard glasses without having long term ill effects. You always have to take statements in context, otherwise EVERY statement people make is false.
When I think of minerals, I think of iron, zinc, and things other than salts. Minerals is a very broad term. I feel like salts is a more specific term.
Salts and potassium are more specific yes, but they are both still minerals. Iron and zinc are also more specific, and are both part of the metal subgroup of minerals. None the less, minerals is a nice way to avoid specifically listing both salt and potassium (and possibly other things that the linked article didn't mention).
Except that the grandparents arguments were not valid.
There are a lot of FreeBSD users out there, if you want to estimate try looking at the traffice www.freebsd.org gets, or the number of mirrors.
The rest of the grandparent's post is equally as crufty. Hardware support on FreeBSD is quite good, many times things have worked in FreeBSD that haven't worked in Linux (yes, Linux may have support, but I don't have 3 years to figure out how to make that support actually *work*). Performance wise FreeBSD has long been better than Linux, and this only changed with the release of 2.6. Even so, FreeBSD 5.3 is competitive with Linux 2.6.
I tend to be one of those guys that likes mostly packaged stuff. But fair enough, it's probably just my distro's fault (Debian). I'm not at all surprised that it wasn't compiled that way.:(
I really should not judge open source software by using Debian since it tends not to be.. uh... optimal for desktop. *ducks and runs from debian fans*
Epiphany, which uses the mozilla engine, doesn't show SVGs it seems.
Epiphany 1.0.8 Mozilla 1.6
Additionally, the page you linked to states that the Mozilla SVG implementation doesn't yet support animations (if I understand it correctly). So not only is it only in, I presume, a bleeding edge version, but even then it won't view this page!
It's cool to pimp your fav. software, but it won't reflect well on Mozilla when you say it does stuff that it don't.
Your statement is false. I currently have my liver monitored for abnormal behavior due to the drugs a doctor has me on which can possibly damage it.
One exception does not make his statement false. You didn't tell us how much you're drinking or what your medical condition is. If you are taking drugs that affect can affect the liver, chances are your illness may be liver related. Also, I think I'd rather trust the many scientific studies involving multiple people rather than your personal opinion involving just you. You cannot make any conclusions with a sample of one. Maybe you just can't handle alcohol.
I have never seen a report on this about "loss of minerals"
If you look at that link you brazenly posted, you'd see at the bottem it mentions losing salt and possasium. Those, my freind, are minerals.
No no, they will not go out and stop others, but they themselves won't go for it I don't think. Consider how much data out there is somehow corporation driven. Even slashdot is driven by ads and gets funded by a company. Think of all the online stores, the movie companies (woulnd't annotated theatre showtimes be cool? not too much of that around, one such site for the US, but not for any other country).
This would be cool for academic information, but the majority of hte public doesn't care much for that kind of stuff. Can you see the new york times annotated their data? I can't. They won't even let you see their ad driven stuff without given them tons of personal information. See my point?
Granted, many places have put up RDF data, but that data is very limited and only intended to draw you to their pages where you get assaulted by ads once again. It may be that semantic corporate information may take off in a very limited fashion, but I can't see it taking off as much as we all hope it would.
Even as it stands today, some people get sued for say, compiling lists of deals different companies offer. Easy access to data is not what companies want. They want highly *controlled* access to data. You can compare information so long as it makes the company look good or gives them an edge. Otherwise they don't want you comparing (data mining) their information, whatever that may be.
Having access to tons of annotated data is a wonderfull dream. I could see academic institutions going for this, but not corporations for the most part.
You see, corporations don't WANT you to be able to access data easily. One of the major driving factors of the current web is advertising. Basically, this is something none of us want to see, but with web pages it's easy to try and force us to see it. Properly annotated data would kill advertising as we know it, something the corporations will not let happen.
Also, corporations do not want us to be able to easily compare data either. Take prices for instance. Many stores have promises like "we'll match any price". This worked on the basis that it's hard and tedious to go check other prices and people will think "well, hey, if they are making this promise surely they already have the lowest price otherwise everyone would be calling them on it". Well, no, most people will not go check for lower prices, and if they do and end up finding lower prices elsewhere, they will often buy elswhere. Easy price comparisons are not something online stores want to allow.
Ulitmatly, most sites want to force you to look at data they want you to look at (ads). I doubt we'll ever see all web data in a nice annotated form allowing us to view only what we are interested in.
I came across this a while ago.... didn't look too much into it yet but it seems to take into account one very important (and very unfortunate) aspect of the net, data ownership and *price*.
I came across this a while ago.... didn't look too much into it yet but it seems to take into account one very important (and very unfortunate) aspect of the net, data ownership and *price*.
The life cycle I agree with for desktop systems. Laptops are never really upgradable so I don't think it matters for those.
I'm not sure what you don't like about the integration, but I can tell you that of all the different PC's I've used (white boxes, dells, laptops, etc etc), my Powerbook is the more integrated than anything else I've seen.
But yeah, it would be nice to see low end upgradeble desktops from Apple as well as low end computers with fast processors.For some reason all the low end Apple computers don't come with the option of having a fast processor. Many people can do without airports and firewire and fast graphics boards, but still need a fast processor with lots of memory.
Integration does not mean upgrading hardware beyond what Apple themselves will do. I just got my first Mac, and it's far far more integrated than any PC laptop I've ever used. I don't expect to be able to upgrade it much though, but that is a separate topic.
What you are complaining about is the Mac's life cycle and lack of upgrades. Both are valid concerns, but neither has anything to do with Macs having good software/hardware integration.
How about this. Apple implemented this feature, and has patented it. If you think they don't derserve it then find prior art.
Apple does not have to prove anything to you, and people who admire apple don't have to apologise for anything.
I can't stand people like you, always whining that company X is evil and then claiming that people who admire company X are *apologising* for the company. People who admire Apple do so because the company produces impressive and usefull products.
Honestly, if you FOSS people would take your head out of the ground for just one second you might realize that this is a sound business decision. If I ran a company I too would patent everything I could. It costs little compared to the protection and potential revenues patents can give.
Apple is not out to be your friend, they are out to make money. No company is out to be your friend. If you don't like patents take it up with the government and stop whining and bitching on slashdot. You'll soon realize that the rest of the world could care less about your holier than thou attitude.
Seeing as you are the minority in using Letter, I'd say your difficulties are your own fault.
Also, the parent was referring to software not using A4 even when the locality is set to non-US. You don't have this problem and techincally your complaint has nothing to do with the parent.
True. And, by the same logic, all other scientists should forget their native language and learn English.
English already IS the language of science. Non-english sicentists do write all their papers in english (with a few exceptions no dobut).
This does not require those scientists to forget their native languages either.
The problem with the US is important companies institutes still write their papers in SI rather than metric. But hey, maybe you LIKE losing probes due to such stupidity.
Your comments didn't seem *that* offensive except maybe for the jews and muslims, and I guess those Kansas folks who won't allow evolution to be taught.
I honestly didn't understand your poke at us athiests though. It just made no sense. I didn't laugh, and I'm not pissed off.
It's kind of like making fun of someone by yelling "you bitbaabeeelooo!". Chances are they will look at you and go "Uh?"
How that other athiest got pissed off I have no idea.
Yes we know that, but it's still lame. By the way, was your comment Free-as-in-beer or Free-as-in-freedom?
[sarcasm] Please tell me becasue it *really really really* matters. Oh yes. I was to go modify your comment and redistribute it!! [/sarcasm]
I understand many people have some holy quest, but last I checked this site was "news for nerds" and not "gospels of GNU". Leave the preaching for relevant stories please.
They would not be so highly respected by being wrong. Just because no operating system is completely safe does not make the analysis wrong.
In real life, recommendations are just that, recommendations. It's up to you to realize that even though the research has not been done, that all operating systems have faults. You can then decide that the specific faults of windows or linux that the Gartner group highlights are worse or better than the faults of other systems.
But it's so much more fun to act like you know everything and throw insults at groups like Gartner.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no it doesn't demonstrate that at all. Don't like the licesne change? Fork the version before the license change. That's exactly what happened here. If anything, this shows that the arguments for the GPL are nowhere near as strong as people think.
Besides, you forget that this was not so much about the license change as it was about the underlying leadership issues. You do know that the new license was removed from all files that would have caused incompatibility with GPL X programs right?
Yup, they pretty much don't have any clue why alcohol is benificial to heart disease. From the abstracts most of the standard indicators are unaffected by drinking. I included the fourth one to be balanced. :) Obviously alcohol has negative effects.
:) But oddly there is a real benifit from drinking, and some (many) real negatives. Maybe the good stuff isn't worth the risk, but hell, I like drinking. ;)
An interesting question would be, do you need to drink throughout your life to get the benifits when you are old? Or only when you are old? If they can isolate what is causing the good effects they might also be able to make a drug that has those effects minus the negative effects of alcohol.
More study *is* needed.
Links didn't work, oops. I really must start using preview more: first second third fourth
I understand trusting multiple scientific studies, but I have yet to see a link to one. ;)
m d= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1505547 5
m d= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1504212 8
m d= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1465264 0
m d= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1503622 5
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?c
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?c
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?c
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?c
To be fair though, alcohol also has negative health effects in addition to the positive effects. I personally find that even one drink the night before a workout has a noticable impact.
The orignal poster was likely referring to significant negative effects of alcohol. Most people can drink 2 standard glasses without having long term ill effects. You always have to take statements in context, otherwise EVERY statement people make is false.
When I think of minerals, I think of iron, zinc, and things other than salts. Minerals is a very broad term. I feel like salts is a more specific term.
Salts and potassium are more specific yes, but they are both still minerals. Iron and zinc are also more specific, and are both part of the metal subgroup of minerals. None the less, minerals is a nice way to avoid specifically listing both salt and potassium (and possibly other things that the linked article didn't mention).
Except that the grandparents arguments were not valid.
There are a lot of FreeBSD users out there, if you want to estimate try looking at the traffice www.freebsd.org gets, or the number of mirrors.
The rest of the grandparent's post is equally as crufty. Hardware support on FreeBSD is quite good, many times things have worked in FreeBSD that haven't worked in Linux (yes, Linux may have support, but I don't have 3 years to figure out how to make that support actually *work*). Performance wise FreeBSD has long been better than Linux, and this only changed with the release of 2.6. Even so, FreeBSD 5.3 is competitive with Linux 2.6.
I could go on, but it's a waste of my time.
A suburb-born CPA that ruins the retirements of thousands of families gets a slap on the wrist.
Ok, these worms may cost companies money in bandwidth and tech time, but come on, they don't *ruin the retirements of thousands of families*.
I tend to be one of those guys that likes mostly packaged stuff. But fair enough, it's probably just my distro's fault (Debian). I'm not at all surprised that it wasn't compiled that way. :(
.. uh... optimal for desktop. *ducks and runs from debian fans*
I really should not judge open source software by using Debian since it tends not to be
Thanks for the clarification.
Epiphany, which uses the mozilla engine, doesn't show SVGs it seems.
Epiphany 1.0.8
Mozilla 1.6
Additionally, the page you linked to states that the Mozilla SVG implementation doesn't yet support animations (if I understand it correctly). So not only is it only in, I presume, a bleeding edge version, but even then it won't view this page!
It's cool to pimp your fav. software, but it won't reflect well on Mozilla when you say it does stuff that it don't.
Your statement is false. I currently have my liver monitored for abnormal behavior due to the drugs a doctor has me on which can possibly damage it.
One exception does not make his statement false. You didn't tell us how much you're drinking or what your medical condition is. If you are taking drugs that affect can affect the liver, chances are your illness may be liver related. Also, I think I'd rather trust the many scientific studies involving multiple people rather than your personal opinion involving just you. You cannot make any conclusions with a sample of one. Maybe you just can't handle alcohol.
I have never seen a report on this about "loss of minerals"
If you look at that link you brazenly posted, you'd see at the bottem it mentions losing salt and possasium. Those, my freind, are minerals.
No no, they will not go out and stop others, but they themselves won't go for it I don't think. Consider how much data out there is somehow corporation driven. Even slashdot is driven by ads and gets funded by a company. Think of all the online stores, the movie companies (woulnd't annotated theatre showtimes be cool? not too much of that around, one such site for the US, but not for any other country).
This would be cool for academic information, but the majority of hte public doesn't care much for that kind of stuff. Can you see the new york times annotated their data? I can't. They won't even let you see their ad driven stuff without given them tons of personal information. See my point?
Granted, many places have put up RDF data, but that data is very limited and only intended to draw you to their pages where you get assaulted by ads once again. It may be that semantic corporate information may take off in a very limited fashion, but I can't see it taking off as much as we all hope it would.
Even as it stands today, some people get sued for say, compiling lists of deals different companies offer. Easy access to data is not what companies want. They want highly *controlled* access to data. You can compare information so long as it makes the company look good or gives them an edge. Otherwise they don't want you comparing (data mining) their information, whatever that may be.
Having access to tons of annotated data is a wonderfull dream. I could see academic institutions going for this, but not corporations for the most part.
You see, corporations don't WANT you to be able to access data easily. One of the major driving factors of the current web is advertising. Basically, this is something none of us want to see, but with web pages it's easy to try and force us to see it. Properly annotated data would kill advertising as we know it, something the corporations will not let happen.
Also, corporations do not want us to be able to easily compare data either. Take prices for instance. Many stores have promises like "we'll match any price". This worked on the basis that it's hard and tedious to go check other prices and people will think "well, hey, if they are making this promise surely they already have the lowest price otherwise everyone would be calling them on it". Well, no, most people will not go check for lower prices, and if they do and end up finding lower prices elsewhere, they will often buy elswhere. Easy price comparisons are not something online stores want to allow.
Ulitmatly, most sites want to force you to look at data they want you to look at (ads). I doubt we'll ever see all web data in a nice annotated form allowing us to view only what we are interested in.
Yes, my thoughts exactly.
I came across this a while ago.... didn't look too much into it yet but it seems to take into account one very important (and very unfortunate) aspect of the net, data ownership and *price*.
Dumbass me, forgot the link:
http://mariposa.cs.berkeley.edu/
Yes, my thoughts exactly.
I came across this a while ago.... didn't look too much into it yet but it seems to take into account one very important (and very unfortunate) aspect of the net, data ownership and *price*.
Yes, you could even replicate slashdot's moderation bias:
Linux + negative words = low score
Linux + positive words = high score
Mac + zealot = high score
Linux + zealot = low score
M$ = score of +infinity
The hard part would be getting it to score posts that present reality as -infinity.
The life cycle I agree with for desktop systems. Laptops are never really upgradable so I don't think it matters for those.
.For some reason all the low end Apple computers don't come with the option of having a fast processor. Many people can do without airports and firewire and fast graphics boards, but still need a fast processor with lots of memory.
I'm not sure what you don't like about the integration, but I can tell you that of all the different PC's I've used (white boxes, dells, laptops, etc etc), my Powerbook is the more integrated than anything else I've seen.
But yeah, it would be nice to see low end upgradeble desktops from Apple as well as low end computers with fast processors
Integration does not mean upgrading hardware beyond what Apple themselves will do. I just got my first Mac, and it's far far more integrated than any PC laptop I've ever used. I don't expect to be able to upgrade it much though, but that is a separate topic.
What you are complaining about is the Mac's life cycle and lack of upgrades. Both are valid concerns, but neither has anything to do with Macs having good software/hardware integration.
Typical of the slashdot crowd, moderating down comments that bring a little reality to fantasy land.
What a bunch of children.
How about this. Apple implemented this feature, and has patented it. If you think they don't derserve it then find prior art.
Apple does not have to prove anything to you, and people who admire apple don't have to apologise for anything.
I can't stand people like you, always whining that company X is evil and then claiming that people who admire company X are *apologising* for the company. People who admire Apple do so because the company produces impressive and usefull products.
Honestly, if you FOSS people would take your head out of the ground for just one second you might realize that this is a sound business decision. If I ran a company I too would patent everything I could. It costs little compared to the protection and potential revenues patents can give.
Apple is not out to be your friend, they are out to make money. No company is out to be your friend. If you don't like patents take it up with the government and stop whining and bitching on slashdot. You'll soon realize that the rest of the world could care less about your holier than thou attitude.
Seeing as you are the minority in using Letter, I'd say your difficulties are your own fault.
Also, the parent was referring to software not using A4 even when the locality is set to non-US. You don't have this problem and techincally your complaint has nothing to do with the parent.
True. And, by the same logic, all other scientists should forget their native language and learn English.
English already IS the language of science. Non-english sicentists do write all their papers in english (with a few exceptions no dobut).
This does not require those scientists to forget their native languages either.
The problem with the US is important companies institutes still write their papers in SI rather than metric. But hey, maybe you LIKE losing probes due to such stupidity.
Your comments didn't seem *that* offensive except maybe for the jews and muslims, and I guess those Kansas folks who won't allow evolution to be taught.
I honestly didn't understand your poke at us athiests though. It just made no sense. I didn't laugh, and I'm not pissed off.
It's kind of like making fun of someone by yelling "you bitbaabeeelooo!". Chances are they will look at you and go "Uh?"
How that other athiest got pissed off I have no idea.
Aithiests would have an absolute fit, when they translated the alien pledge of aliegence.
I don't know about fits, but if the aliens make as little sense as the above, we athiests will *definatly* be going "HUH?"
Were you trying to be funny?
Yes we know that, but it's still lame. By the way, was your comment Free-as-in-beer or Free-as-in-freedom?
[sarcasm]
Please tell me becasue it *really really really* matters. Oh yes. I was to go modify your comment and redistribute it!! [/sarcasm]
I understand many people have some holy quest, but last I checked this site was "news for nerds" and not "gospels of GNU". Leave the preaching for relevant stories please.
They would not be so highly respected by being wrong. Just because no operating system is completely safe does not make the analysis wrong.
In real life, recommendations are just that, recommendations. It's up to you to realize that even though the research has not been done, that all operating systems have faults. You can then decide that the specific faults of windows or linux that the Gartner group highlights are worse or better than the faults of other systems.
But it's so much more fun to act like you know everything and throw insults at groups like Gartner.
Use Mac, BSD, Solaris, Irix, or AIX.
Windows and Linux are not the only two operating systems in existance, this is a slashdot misconception.