What difference would it make if Sun "promised" to not sue free software projects "using" those patents? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a mere promise wouldn't hold up in court, anyway.
That's just what I mean. A flag's just that - a piece of cloth that doesn't actually *mean* anything. It's a sad day when people are outraged because a particular representation of a symbol of their freedoms in a specific medium is destroyed, but not when the actual *freedoms* are being taken away.
That's true, of course, but the difference between outlawing public burning of flags and outlawing public burning of *anything* is exactly that doing the former does not have any actual political connotations. It's just like with, say, the owner of a club deciding that no further guests will be admitted (for safety reasons, since the club's full) as opposed to the club owner deciding that, for example, no black people will be admitted.
And of course, if you *do* outlaw flag burning specifically, then the question arises just which flags you can and cannot burn, too. Can I burn a flag of another country? A flag of a state (as opposed to that of the usa as such)? An earlier version of the flag with less stars? The flag the south used during the civil war? A variant of the flag that has less stripes, different colours, a different aspect ratio or some other distinguishing characteristics that makes it distinct from the flag of the usa?
Thinking about it, here's another thought: if flag burning is illegal, then shouldn't it also be illegal to delete a picture of the flag on your computer? It's just the same really when you think about it: neither the piece of cloth nor the file is *the* flag as such; rather, they're just representations of it in a particular medium.
Might be food for thought to give your local neocon relatives/friends/coworkers/... when you discuss the topic with them next time.:)
Try asking them to find Iraq on a map of the world. There was a study that did just that a few years ago, and IIRC, more than 50% couldn't do it, even though they were currently at war with it.
Some countries... like the USA, one might add. Yeah, there's not a specific *law* there that allows that, but hey, all you need to do is be ruthless enough to do it, offer a story based on FUD and lies to the general public why you have to do it and why it is for their security, and hardly anybody will complain.
The funny thing about flag burning and all those attempts to make it illegal (or the idea that it already is) is that when you ask a conservative who actually knows about these things, you'll find out that burning a flag is actually the only proper way to get rid of one when you have to - for example, to prevent it from falling into the hands of the enemy. For some reason, those pushing for a law that would make burning flags illegal never seem to know about that.
Not that I myself care about what happens to a flag in the slightest, of course - if you're a soldier and in a fight, you probably have better things to do than worry about than a piece of cloth that probably was produced in a sweatshop in communist China, anyway.
It's funny how these neocons aren't actually conservative in the actual sense of the word, though.
That kind of policy can ultimately, in the long run, only be a bad thing, and those who talk about the merits of a meritocracy should keep in mind that this is none. Quite the opposite: if it was a meritocracy, someone who'd contribute good code and prove to be interested in helping out and implementing/fixing things that matter to them would become a developer without any big deal being made.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if it really a meritocracy (or a project which really understood what free software is about), there wouldn't be such a clear distinction between developers and users, anyway. All that really can be observed HERE is a kind of "ivory tower" elitist attitude that will ultimately hinder rather than help; people seem to be afraid to actually have an open development process as soon as projects grow larger or get a larger (and, in particular, a larger non-geek) userbase, but I think Linus' success with Linux' development model shows that this is not a reasonable thing.
Ever wondered why Linux actually *is* more successful than the various BSDs, and why (for that matter) hundreds of Linux distros coexist in peace while the *BSD developers generally seem to be unable to even talk to each other? It's not just because the majority of people are more inclined to contribute to a project that not only is free but *stays* free; it's also because with Linux, when you scratch your itch, you have a good chance of it actually being picked up, used and included into their trees by others, ultimately even Linus, as long as you're willing to demonstrate you're actually willing to maintain your code for longer than a few weeks.
The Xfree86 vs. X.org schism is another good example: people used Xfree86 because there was no real alternative, but they weren't happy with it and with the fact that the developers cared so little for the users and instead chose to form an elitist club of their own, so when an alternative popped up, they started using that. Can you name a major Linux distro that still uses Xfree86 instead of X.org? There may be a few left, particularly those that are more conservative about these things (like Debian, although I haven't checked which implementation they use), but I think it's safe to say that the majority has already switched, and that this trend will only continue in the future unless the Xfree86 developers radically rethink their attitude.
As for Firefox (or Mozilla in general) again, I can't say I'm too surprised, though. They have had this attitude forever (if you ever reported a bug, you'll know what I mean; if you don't, check out bug 18574, for example), and I think it's reasonably safe to say that people are using Mozilla mostly because there's no real alternative (IE decidedly is not one, and it's windows-only, anyway; Opera is not free and has banner ads unless you pay for it, and Konqueror is integrated too much with KDE for some people's taste, not to mention that not running on windows means a good share of Mozilla users can't use it, anyway). As soon as a new, better browser project gains ground, Mozilla will find itself in the same situation that Xfree86 is in today. It may be less serious, since it's more easy to include two browsers with your distro than two X servers, but ultimately, it's adapt or die, and I think some Mozilla people (asa comes to mind, as do some others) will have to learn that the hard way.
Speaking of CSS, don't forget bug 3247, which is about Mozilla's lack of an implementation of CSS-generated content. It may sound obscure, but the lack of this means that it's impossible to even, say, have an ordered list (<ol>) that starts with anything except 1 (unless you want to limit yourself to HTML 4.01/transitional, that is, which kinda defeats the purpose of using CSS in the first case).
It's actually being worked on now, thankfully, but only after it had been open for almost an entire 6 years, which I think is a shame. I like to bash M$ for not being standards-compliant in IE as much as anyone else (anyone else on/., anyway), but there are many areas where Gecko isn't better in the slightest.
Wouldn't it make more sense to read past the headline and see that this is from 1992? It's not as if Apple is showing a demo of the upcoming NeXTstep *today*.
Now, now - he *does* have a point. "Emergent" development (if you want to call it that) does not about individual developers doing random things until something useful happens; it means that things are not coded because some guy high up in the management chain says so but because someone's scratching a particular itch, and that, similarly, things are not included into the project's main source tree because some high-up says they have to
but rather because they prove to be interesting, useful, cool or something similar. Branching happens, as does the (re)merging of branches; obsolete branches die or find their own special niche, and software ultimately survives not because someone with lots of money/power/influence backs it up but rather because it proves to be good at doing the job. So, in that sense, the comparison to evolution vs. creationism does make sense.
Yes, I know. However, considering that this was in the mid-90s, I don't know where they could've picked that up - and it doesn't explain why they resisted all my attempts to explain the whole thing for so long, either.
Let's face it, some people not only ARE uninformed but also want to STAY uninformed.
To be fair, it doesn't actually delete anything automatically. But then, given how computer-unsavvy some people are (remember, we're talking about people who may not even grasp the concept of a "folder" or a "file"! [1]), I think it's safe to say that there'll be lots of people who'll just delete everything it finds.
1. Yeah, there are people who don't understand these things. Back in the DOS day, my parents used to believe for years it was harmful for the computer to be turned off if they were in a directory other than C:\, and it really took me some serious effort to convince them that that's not the case...
If a cashier does not take them, complain (or threaten to); AFAIK, they are required by law to take them if they are valid currency.
As for vending machines... once they become common, vending machine vendors will start building machines that take them, too.
Well, I think they will at least investigate when you do that, and I wouldn't be *too* surprised if they arrested that person, too. Of course, without a judge's warrant, they'd have to release him again after 24 hours (or a similar amount of time, depending on where you live), and if it turns out that you were just playing a prank or something like that, then I'd predict that you'd be the one in trouble.
Of course, appropriate measures in case of an accusation of murder may be different from the appropriate measures in case of an alleged hacking attempt, but ultimately, yes, the police *does* have the ability to arrest people without obtaining a judge's warrant first. And usually, that's a good thing, too, because when a cop sees someone rob a bank (for example), you want them to be able to arrest that guy right away (or try to) instead of having to ask for a warrant first.:)
It *is* a system that can be potentially abused, of course, but the fact that you can only be arrested for so long without a warrant (unless you happen to on the receiving end of the usa's paranoia and end up in camp x-ray, of course) is one safeguard meant to prevent abuse.
There's an easy solution to that: just make more of them. When they're common enough, people will stop hording them since they don't have any novelty value anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
What difference would it make if Sun "promised" to not sue free software projects "using" those patents? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a mere promise wouldn't hold up in court, anyway.
That's just what I mean. A flag's just that - a piece of cloth that doesn't actually *mean* anything. It's a sad day when people are outraged because a particular representation of a symbol of their freedoms in a specific medium is destroyed, but not when the actual *freedoms* are being taken away.
That's true, of course, but the difference between outlawing public burning of flags and outlawing public burning of *anything* is exactly that doing the former does not have any actual political connotations. It's just like with, say, the owner of a club deciding that no further guests will be admitted (for safety reasons, since the club's full) as opposed to the club owner deciding that, for example, no black people will be admitted. And of course, if you *do* outlaw flag burning specifically, then the question arises just which flags you can and cannot burn, too. Can I burn a flag of another country? A flag of a state (as opposed to that of the usa as such)? An earlier version of the flag with less stars? The flag the south used during the civil war? A variant of the flag that has less stripes, different colours, a different aspect ratio or some other distinguishing characteristics that makes it distinct from the flag of the usa? Thinking about it, here's another thought: if flag burning is illegal, then shouldn't it also be illegal to delete a picture of the flag on your computer? It's just the same really when you think about it: neither the piece of cloth nor the file is *the* flag as such; rather, they're just representations of it in a particular medium. Might be food for thought to give your local neocon relatives/friends/coworkers/... when you discuss the topic with them next time. :)
Why?
It's not, but depending on where you live, you might not want to do it anyway unless you want to risk being lynched by an angry mob.
(Just to be sure it's not misunderstood, that was a rather cynical comment, but there is more than a grain of truth in it.)
Try asking them to find Iraq on a map of the world. There was a study that did just that a few years ago, and IIRC, more than 50% couldn't do it, even though they were currently at war with it.
Some countries... like the USA, one might add. Yeah, there's not a specific *law* there that allows that, but hey, all you need to do is be ruthless enough to do it, offer a story based on FUD and lies to the general public why you have to do it and why it is for their security, and hardly anybody will complain.
The funny thing about flag burning and all those attempts to make it illegal (or the idea that it already is) is that when you ask a conservative who actually knows about these things, you'll find out that burning a flag is actually the only proper way to get rid of one when you have to - for example, to prevent it from falling into the hands of the enemy. For some reason, those pushing for a law that would make burning flags illegal never seem to know about that.
Not that I myself care about what happens to a flag in the slightest, of course - if you're a soldier and in a fight, you probably have better things to do than worry about than a piece of cloth that probably was produced in a sweatshop in communist China, anyway.
It's funny how these neocons aren't actually conservative in the actual sense of the word, though.
I have your shotgun shells right here in my SSG. :)
That kind of policy can ultimately, in the long run, only be a bad thing, and those who talk about the merits of a meritocracy should keep in mind that this is none. Quite the opposite: if it was a meritocracy, someone who'd contribute good code and prove to be interested in helping out and implementing/fixing things that matter to them would become a developer without any big deal being made.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if it really a meritocracy (or a project which really understood what free software is about), there wouldn't be such a clear distinction between developers and users, anyway. All that really can be observed HERE is a kind of "ivory tower" elitist attitude that will ultimately hinder rather than help; people seem to be afraid to actually have an open development process as soon as projects grow larger or get a larger (and, in particular, a larger non-geek) userbase, but I think Linus' success with Linux' development model shows that this is not a reasonable thing.
Ever wondered why Linux actually *is* more successful than the various BSDs, and why (for that matter) hundreds of Linux distros coexist in peace while the *BSD developers generally seem to be unable to even talk to each other? It's not just because the majority of people are more inclined to contribute to a project that not only is free but *stays* free; it's also because with Linux, when you scratch your itch, you have a good chance of it actually being picked up, used and included into their trees by others, ultimately even Linus, as long as you're willing to demonstrate you're actually willing to maintain your code for longer than a few weeks.
The Xfree86 vs. X.org schism is another good example: people used Xfree86 because there was no real alternative, but they weren't happy with it and with the fact that the developers cared so little for the users and instead chose to form an elitist club of their own, so when an alternative popped up, they started using that. Can you name a major Linux distro that still uses Xfree86 instead of X.org? There may be a few left, particularly those that are more conservative about these things (like Debian, although I haven't checked which implementation they use), but I think it's safe to say that the majority has already switched, and that this trend will only continue in the future unless the Xfree86 developers radically rethink their attitude.
As for Firefox (or Mozilla in general) again, I can't say I'm too surprised, though. They have had this attitude forever (if you ever reported a bug, you'll know what I mean; if you don't, check out bug 18574, for example), and I think it's reasonably safe to say that people are using Mozilla mostly because there's no real alternative (IE decidedly is not one, and it's windows-only, anyway; Opera is not free and has banner ads unless you pay for it, and Konqueror is integrated too much with KDE for some people's taste, not to mention that not running on windows means a good share of Mozilla users can't use it, anyway). As soon as a new, better browser project gains ground, Mozilla will find itself in the same situation that Xfree86 is in today. It may be less serious, since it's more easy to include two browsers with your distro than two X servers, but ultimately, it's adapt or die, and I think some Mozilla people (asa comes to mind, as do some others) will have to learn that the hard way.
It's actually being worked on now, thankfully, but only after it had been open for almost an entire 6 years, which I think is a shame. I like to bash M$ for not being standards-compliant in IE as much as anyone else (anyone else on /., anyway), but there are many areas where Gecko isn't better in the slightest.
Wouldn't it make more sense to read past the headline and see that this is from 1992? It's not as if Apple is showing a demo of the upcoming NeXTstep *today*.
Now, now - he *does* have a point. "Emergent" development (if you want to call it that) does not about individual developers doing random things until something useful happens; it means that things are not coded because some guy high up in the management chain says so but because someone's scratching a particular itch, and that, similarly, things are not included into the project's main source tree because some high-up says they have to but rather because they prove to be interesting, useful, cool or something similar. Branching happens, as does the (re)merging of branches; obsolete branches die or find their own special niche, and software ultimately survives not because someone with lots of money/power/influence backs it up but rather because it proves to be good at doing the job. So, in that sense, the comparison to evolution vs. creationism does make sense.
Yes, one. What does sendmail have to do with linux?
Yes, I know. However, considering that this was in the mid-90s, I don't know where they could've picked that up - and it doesn't explain why they resisted all my attempts to explain the whole thing for so long, either. Let's face it, some people not only ARE uninformed but also want to STAY uninformed.
Yeah, but this thing *does* report mIRC as "p2p software" (seriously!).
I don't know... Ad-Aware never complained to me about mIRC being a "p2p" application, at least. :)
To be fair, it doesn't actually delete anything automatically. But then, given how computer-unsavvy some people are (remember, we're talking about people who may not even grasp the concept of a "folder" or a "file"! [1]), I think it's safe to say that there'll be lots of people who'll just delete everything it finds. 1. Yeah, there are people who don't understand these things. Back in the DOS day, my parents used to believe for years it was harmful for the computer to be turned off if they were in a directory other than C:\, and it really took me some serious effort to convince them that that's not the case...
I'd be surprised if it didn't tag .wav files, actually, but I haven't checked, so take that with a grain of salt. :)
No. It's just that for some reason, most of the comments on the earlier "second round of mpaa lawsuits" story actually dealt with this.
It really tags *any* media file, including soundtracks etc. of games, iTunes songs and just about everything else.
If a cashier does not take them, complain (or threaten to); AFAIK, they are required by law to take them if they are valid currency. As for vending machines... once they become common, vending machine vendors will start building machines that take them, too.
Well, I think they will at least investigate when you do that, and I wouldn't be *too* surprised if they arrested that person, too. Of course, without a judge's warrant, they'd have to release him again after 24 hours (or a similar amount of time, depending on where you live), and if it turns out that you were just playing a prank or something like that, then I'd predict that you'd be the one in trouble.
:)
Of course, appropriate measures in case of an accusation of murder may be different from the appropriate measures in case of an alleged hacking attempt, but ultimately, yes, the police *does* have the ability to arrest people without obtaining a judge's warrant first. And usually, that's a good thing, too, because when a cop sees someone rob a bank (for example), you want them to be able to arrest that guy right away (or try to) instead of having to ask for a warrant first.
It *is* a system that can be potentially abused, of course, but the fact that you can only be arrested for so long without a warrant (unless you happen to on the receiving end of the usa's paranoia and end up in camp x-ray, of course) is one safeguard meant to prevent abuse.
There's an easy solution to that: just make more of them. When they're common enough, people will stop hording them since they don't have any novelty value anymore.
I'm not sure I'd call it a troll, but it sure would deserve a "-1, Clueless Wannabe". :)