All spam spoofs the sent-by address. As evidenced by the eighty thousand bounce mails I've gotten in my inbox the last 2 months (some spammer kindly used MY email address as the sent-by address... if I ever meet the responsible party, they won't live to tell about it).
I was trying to explain why some of us arn't willing to encourage non-free software use just to get more people to use Linux.
You weren't talking about the cost of software (as binary software can be "free"), you were talking about your concept of freedom in the context of why binary software shouldn't be permitted on Linux. "For some of us the freedom is the goal".
As I originally said, your version of "freedom" removes choices.
I think you ass-u-me way too much.
I don't. Read slashdot every time someone releases something binary only. You'll see a crapton of people whining about it. You'll see people trying to start boycots against that company. You'll get people telling them that they aren't welcome in the community. You get people writing threatening letters. You get people trying to figure out how to interpret the GPL in a manner such that the source can be demanded (it runs on linux so it has to be GPL'd). You get people trying to figure out how to modify the GPL in a manner such that the source must be distributed for anything that can run on linux. Etc.
I don't disagree with you -- Linux users (or anyone else for that matter) are perfectly within their rights to say they don't want binary only software. I've got no problems with someone making a personal decision.
I've got plenty of problems when they try to force me to make the same decision, or to conform to their view of the world (as the original person I was responding to was attempting to do). The problem is that there are people out there who do everything they can to eliminate said software in the name of "freedom" (the person I responded to falls into this category). So, their version of "freedom" means that I can't distribute or sell binary only software; it also means that I can't buy binary only software.
Freedom is having the ability to make the choice you're referring to.
You are against the concept of selling binary only software. Your "freedom" requires me to restrict the manner in which I decide to distribute a creative work that I create.
By doing so, your freedom is costing someone else their freedom. In order to increase your choices, you are restricting the choices available to others.
When you say "freedom is the goal", you really mean "my freedom is the goal"; don't pretend that your 'goal' results in freedom for all parties.
Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise
They are free to do so and provide notice of such restrictions before a transaction has completed. Once the transaction has completed, they are required to accept any form of legal tender. If they refuse to accept payment of legal tender, the debt will be discharged (after a civil court action, assuming the debtee or debtor takes it to court).
"Some movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations as a matter of policy may refuse to accept currency of a large denomination, such as notes above $20, and as long as notice is posted and a transaction giving rise to a debt has not already been completed, these organizations have not violated the legal tender law."
Because they don't get tax breaks for it. They don't get tax breaks for the arts either -- but corporations are run by upity millionairs obcessed with high-society things (like "the arts")...
You get tax breaks for donating funds to charity, and while I'm sure an arguement could be made that donating money for pure science ends up putting food in the mouth of a poor starving scientist, the IRS won't buy it.
Initially, habitats WILL be small. We aren't going to magically build a large structure overnight. And as the people living in those habitats will likely be spending their days constructing a larger habitat (in the "dusty" environment), this problem is non-trivial.
[...] I don't think I'm too worried about the dust getting in my lungs as the description suggests. Any habitat on the moon will be pressurized. I should hope so, at least.
If you ever have an EVA outside of the habitat (which I'm sure would occur), you're going to track the dust back inside with you.
And the fact that a 747 can carry cargo proves what? They don't drop it out of the craft midflight... Satelite deployments are non-trivial, and require specific altitutes and orbits. Not one of these companies has stated that their goal is to be able to haul heavy cargo into space. If they can, great, but they aren't aiming for it -- there isn't any profit in it.
Ironically, the reason why the 747 makes for a good cargo carrier is that the plane was designed for it. At the time the 747 was being designed, the Concorde made its debute. Boeing was afraid that future passenger air travel would all be supersonic (similar to the transition from prop to jet), and wanted a backup plan to fall back on in order to recoup the costs of their design efforts (again, a decision driven by money).
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am against private space flight all together, which is certainly not the case. I'm sure private industry is capable of commoditizing many aspects of space flight, making them more efficient. I am however against the perception that private industry is capable of replacing the role NASA takes in space exploration and discovery, because there is no money to be made in much of what NASA does.
Giving NASA, or other independent research agencies, the ability to loft cargo into orbit for a fraction of the cost -- how does that not benefit us all
If we ever get there, I'll conceed that point. However, no company is currently shooting for lifting cargo into space -- there is no money to be made doing that. The way space agencies have been launching cargo into orbit for the last few decades is one of the more 'efficient' ways of going about doing it. Piggybacking cargo onto a "plane" for orbital launch doesn't scale.
Its all about space tourism at this point. Helps pure science not one bit.
Do you believe that Integrated Circiut technology should have been kept within NASA, instead of letting IBM, Motorola, Intel, etc. have a go at it?
IC tech from IBM, Motorola, Intel, etc was not the result of pure science -- it was the result of applied science.
Your post is so full of BS I'd be surprised if you hadn't taken a dump on your keyboard.
I think you need to learn the difference between applied science and pure science.
Closest thing I can think of is the whole X-prize thing, which succeeded in launching one person to the boundary of our atmosphere for a few seconds. That would put private industry about, oh, 40 years behind NASA...
And don't even kid yourself into thinking that private industry will do dick for pure science -- everything private industry does has to have a dollar sign at the end of it. Launching a probe to the borders of our solarsystem to learn more about how everything works? No profit involved -- you'll never see a private company doing that. The companies trying to launch people into space? They're not doing it for the hell of it, or for scientific discovery; they're looking to be on the leading edge of "space tourism".
While coal may not burn as 'cleanly' as the gas in your car, a power plant produces power far more effeciently than the engine on your car. Factor in the polution control devices they have scrubbing pollution out of the exhaust and you'll find that emissions from a coal power plant are far cleaner than your average automobile.
That being said, using electricity to power your car doesn't yield a net benefit. If you do the math trying to figure out how much energy is lost charging batteries, storing that energy, and then converting that into mechanical energy, it isn't as appealing.
So that makes it's ok to react in a knee jerk fashion and point fingers without knowing the actual facts involved? How does that add anything useful to the conversation?
If you could demonstrate that the changes were superflous in nature, perhaps you'd have a point. But given that you have no idea what was changed or the reasons for it, you're just being paranoid (and/or trolling, given the nature of your post).
v1.1 of.Net lacked certain features necessary for running a dynamic language (ie: perf would blow). These features were added in v2.0 (ie: perf no longer blows).
It was already like that. There were no restrictions on OEMs preventing competing media players from being installed, as evidenced by the fact that OEMs can and do install other media players.
Slashdot Mirror
Look forward to all your spams ending in 500-word blocks of text from a copy of MegaHAL trained on old grandmothers' email boxes
Some spam is already including the text of random news articles to defeat filters...
All spam spoofs the sent-by address. As evidenced by the eighty thousand bounce mails I've gotten in my inbox the last 2 months (some spammer kindly used MY email address as the sent-by address ... if I ever meet the responsible party, they won't live to tell about it).
Who said that they wouldn't be showing it at E3? They're launching it on a TV show, but that doesn't mean they aren't going to show it anywhere else.
Who said that it wouldn't be shown at E3? It isn't DEBUTING at E3; E3 is May 17-19.
No, I'm saying your definition of freedom isn't true freedom.
I was trying to explain why some of us arn't willing to encourage non-free software use just to get more people to use Linux.
You weren't talking about the cost of software (as binary software can be "free"), you were talking about your concept of freedom in the context of why binary software shouldn't be permitted on Linux. "For some of us the freedom is the goal".
As I originally said, your version of "freedom" removes choices.
I think you ass-u-me way too much.
I don't. Read slashdot every time someone releases something binary only. You'll see a crapton of people whining about it. You'll see people trying to start boycots against that company. You'll get people telling them that they aren't welcome in the community. You get people writing threatening letters. You get people trying to figure out how to interpret the GPL in a manner such that the source can be demanded (it runs on linux so it has to be GPL'd). You get people trying to figure out how to modify the GPL in a manner such that the source must be distributed for anything that can run on linux. Etc.
Life's too short to take the time to comment on someone commenting about a comment about who takes time to make some sort of crap.
I don't disagree with you -- Linux users (or anyone else for that matter) are perfectly within their rights to say they don't want binary only software. I've got no problems with someone making a personal decision.
I've got plenty of problems when they try to force me to make the same decision, or to conform to their view of the world (as the original person I was responding to was attempting to do). The problem is that there are people out there who do everything they can to eliminate said software in the name of "freedom" (the person I responded to falls into this category). So, their version of "freedom" means that I can't distribute or sell binary only software; it also means that I can't buy binary only software.
Freedom is having the ability to make the choice you're referring to.
You are against the concept of selling binary only software. Your "freedom" requires me to restrict the manner in which I decide to distribute a creative work that I create.
You don't read slashdot that often do you?
By doing so, your freedom is costing someone else their freedom. In order to increase your choices, you are restricting the choices available to others.
When you say "freedom is the goal", you really mean "my freedom is the goal"; don't pretend that your 'goal' results in freedom for all parties.
Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise
a qc ur.htm#2
They are free to do so and provide notice of such restrictions before a transaction has completed. Once the transaction has completed, they are required to accept any form of legal tender. If they refuse to accept payment of legal tender, the debt will be discharged (after a civil court action, assuming the debtee or debtor takes it to court).
"Some movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations as a matter of policy may refuse to accept currency of a large denomination, such as notes above $20, and as long as notice is posted and a transaction giving rise to a debt has not already been completed, these organizations have not violated the legal tender law."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/f
This sounds very much like Xbox Live Arcard ... http://games.teamxbox.com/xbox/987/Xbox-Live-Arcad e/
Because they don't get tax breaks for it. They don't get tax breaks for the arts either -- but corporations are run by upity millionairs obcessed with high-society things (like "the arts") ...
You get tax breaks for donating funds to charity, and while I'm sure an arguement could be made that donating money for pure science ends up putting food in the mouth of a poor starving scientist, the IRS won't buy it.
Initially, habitats WILL be small. We aren't going to magically build a large structure overnight. And as the people living in those habitats will likely be spending their days constructing a larger habitat (in the "dusty" environment), this problem is non-trivial.
[...] I don't think I'm too worried about the dust getting in my lungs as the description suggests. Any habitat on the moon will be pressurized. I should hope so, at least.
If you ever have an EVA outside of the habitat (which I'm sure would occur), you're going to track the dust back inside with you.
And the fact that a 747 can carry cargo proves what? They don't drop it out of the craft midflight... Satelite deployments are non-trivial, and require specific altitutes and orbits. Not one of these companies has stated that their goal is to be able to haul heavy cargo into space. If they can, great, but they aren't aiming for it -- there isn't any profit in it.
Ironically, the reason why the 747 makes for a good cargo carrier is that the plane was designed for it. At the time the 747 was being designed, the Concorde made its debute. Boeing was afraid that future passenger air travel would all be supersonic (similar to the transition from prop to jet), and wanted a backup plan to fall back on in order to recoup the costs of their design efforts (again, a decision driven by money).
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am against private space flight all together, which is certainly not the case. I'm sure private industry is capable of commoditizing many aspects of space flight, making them more efficient. I am however against the perception that private industry is capable of replacing the role NASA takes in space exploration and discovery, because there is no money to be made in much of what NASA does.
Giving NASA, or other independent research agencies, the ability to loft cargo into orbit for a fraction of the cost -- how does that not benefit us all
If we ever get there, I'll conceed that point. However, no company is currently shooting for lifting cargo into space -- there is no money to be made doing that. The way space agencies have been launching cargo into orbit for the last few decades is one of the more 'efficient' ways of going about doing it. Piggybacking cargo onto a "plane" for orbital launch doesn't scale.
Its all about space tourism at this point. Helps pure science not one bit.
Do you believe that Integrated Circiut technology should have been kept within NASA, instead of letting IBM, Motorola, Intel, etc. have a go at it?
IC tech from IBM, Motorola, Intel, etc was not the result of pure science -- it was the result of applied science.
Your post is so full of BS I'd be surprised if you hadn't taken a dump on your keyboard.
I think you need to learn the difference between applied science and pure science.
Articles like what?
...
Closest thing I can think of is the whole X-prize thing, which succeeded in launching one person to the boundary of our atmosphere for a few seconds. That would put private industry about, oh, 40 years behind NASA
And don't even kid yourself into thinking that private industry will do dick for pure science -- everything private industry does has to have a dollar sign at the end of it. Launching a probe to the borders of our solarsystem to learn more about how everything works? No profit involved -- you'll never see a private company doing that. The companies trying to launch people into space? They're not doing it for the hell of it, or for scientific discovery; they're looking to be on the leading edge of "space tourism".
I'd be willing to bet that significant portions of that budget are for leasing dish time.
While coal may not burn as 'cleanly' as the gas in your car, a power plant produces power far more effeciently than the engine on your car. Factor in the polution control devices they have scrubbing pollution out of the exhaust and you'll find that emissions from a coal power plant are far cleaner than your average automobile.
That being said, using electricity to power your car doesn't yield a net benefit. If you do the math trying to figure out how much energy is lost charging batteries, storing that energy, and then converting that into mechanical energy, it isn't as appealing.
So that makes it's ok to react in a knee jerk fashion and point fingers without knowing the actual facts involved? How does that add anything useful to the conversation?
If you could demonstrate that the changes were superflous in nature, perhaps you'd have a point. But given that you have no idea what was changed or the reasons for it, you're just being paranoid (and/or trolling, given the nature of your post).
.Net lacked certain features necessary for running a dynamic language (ie: perf would blow). These features were added in v2.0 (ie: perf no longer blows).
v1.1 of
I would presume so. One of the things Microsoft was freaking out about with this decision is that the EU resolution conflicts with the US resolution.
It was already like that. There were no restrictions on OEMs preventing competing media players from being installed, as evidenced by the fact that OEMs can and do install other media players.