So Steve Jobs had a home in Memphis, Tennessee and a large fanbase who might be interested in visiting it and turning it into a shrine now that he's dead?
Opening to the public soon, it's... Insanely Graceland.
So don't play them and don't whine about flamebait being modded flamebait.
Is this the evergreen fanboy whine of "if you don't like it, don't play/listen to/watch it, and don't criticise" again? (Close relative of "you don't have to buy it, so don't criticise").
Who said that he *was* playing them? Who said that he wasn't entitled to express his opinion? The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it "flamebait".
(Note; this post doesn't even imply that I agree with the OP's opinion, or even that I care about what he was discussing, merely that he's quite entitled to say it).
There IS something capturing about the games of 1990 era. Maybe it's that computers were sufficiently advanced, but not too powerful, which set just the right artistic bounds.
I disagree; I think the reason is that in the 90s, nobody was trying to industrialize game creation, or at least they didn't figure they'd gotten it right. A lot of the shining examples from back then were people that were self-motivated, self-organized, and given some free reign by publishers.
Although you disagree with the GP, who I disagreed with elsewhere, I'm not sure I agree with this either!
For a start, you paint the 90s as the era when gaming was much freer from corporate influence and negativity than it is today. But wasn't that much *more* the case during the early 80s (and even late 70s)?
In fact I'd argue that the 90s (and even the 16-bit, late-80s era) was when things had already moved quite far from the supposed indie utopia you describe and were showing the seeds of today's industry. Wasn't it the early 90s when EA started changing from a relatively well-respected publisher (during the 80s) into the sequel-driven, corporate hate-figure that it is today, starting with the release of endless Madden sequels, then in the mid-90s starting the new-game-every-year licensed FIFA series?
And by the early 90s, the "prodigy indie developer working from his bedroom" phenomenon of the early 80s was already mostly part of a bygone era, as the increasing standards and complexity of games (and the machines they ran on) made this impossible.
In short, I think you're possibly letting nostalgia cloud *your* judgement too- did you also start gaming in the 90s? If that era wasn't as bad as today in terms of corporatisation, it's more just a matter of degree, I suspect.
you mean the late 70s to 80s era? you might be sentimentally attached to 2Ds in the 90 but if you had started gaming earlier they would mostly make you go "meh, another big-sprite rehash".
I'd have to agree with this. This is a 90s-era gamer attached to the style that was around when he/she started gaming. Fair enough, that's true of lots of people, and not just in gaming (applies just as much to music, for example). However, the GP shouldn't kid theirself that it's not a major factor in what they seem to think is a more objective opinion than it probably is.
I was never a rabid gamer, but I have to admit that my tastes were formed in the mid-to-late 80s and still reflect that. The fact that I played computer games with a traditional Atari joystick, and that some of the games were a few years old mean that I'm more attached to 8-bit games of the "late 70s to [late] 80s" era. And I can tell you that I just don't have the same opinion of 90s games. Even the Amiga stuff I was playing 20 years ago (with a few notable exceptions) doesn't do as much for me in retrospect.
Another example- I know we're all supposed to love Nintendo, but the truth is that they don't- and never did- mean much to me, probably because the NES was *never* as big in the UK as it was in Japan and Europe during the late 80s. Similarly, Mario... everyone loves Mario, don't they? Well, not really- I didn't grow up with him, and the Disney-esque, child-oriented nature of the character never appealed to me. You like the character because he reminds you of your childhood? That's fine, but he wasn't a part of mine and he doesn't mean a lot to me.
And I can tell you that the GP is probably kidding themselves if they think that their implication that the 90s was the pinnacle of computer gaming is free from bias. The 90s stuff- both early-90s Mega Drive/Genesis/SNES and late-90s PlayStation does little for me. (I *did* own a PlayStation briefly). I couldn't give a toss for Doom *or* first-person-shooters.
This is as much personal bias reflecting the point at which I played games the most- but my point is that this is just as probably the case with the GP as well!
In ten years time, the people who first gamed in the early-2000s will be saying the same thing, just like every younger generation growing older and becoming the establishment assumes that what was important to them growing up always should be.
Unfortunately no one actually said you have no right to criticise something you have (or haven't) bought.
As I said in my other reply to you, the implication was obvious both by (a) the context and (b) the fact that the comment would have served no purpose if that *hadn't* been the case.
The point is that if you buy a product when you know in advance that it has feature X it's just a bit silly then criticising it for having feature X.
Except that the original article his comment (and the parent comment) were addressing wasn't by someone in that position, it was a general comment on how closed ecosystems could threaten FLOSS, so that doesn't apply.
You need to go on some English compostioin or logic courses
You need to go on a spelling course, smartass:-P
The highlighted part of "it's a free market and it's their product and you're not obliged to buy it so you have no right to criticise " is entirely your own implication or conclusion
No, it's not. The final part was implied by the context of the comment.
He even posted to confirm that it was not what he meant.
And yet he didn't explain what he *did* (supposedly) mean.
The original comment serves no obvious point if one doesn't assume the obvious underlying implication strongly suggested via its context.
MS are able to create products in a free market and we're not obligated to buy them? Well, we know this already. What was the point of saying that unless it was an implied counter-criticism? Oh, and it's purely coincidental that the OP was agreeing with another person's dismissive attitude in the first line of the same post.
It's like my saying that "I like chocolate" is just a shorthand for "I like chocolate and so I am a child molester"
Not at all- I can't even think of any context (no matter how contrived) where that would apply. Whereas I already gave my reasoning above for what I considered the OP was implying.
It's simply nonsense. It literally makes no logical sense.
The reason being that you missed the point and made a stupid analogy.
Bordering on assuming this is just a troll (as opposed to being a legit post with trollish tone), but anyway:-
Looks if the products that are currently being made do not fit into what you want to do, and you also see that there is a large group that wants to do exactly what you want to do. THEN WHY THE FUCK DON"T YOU MAKE YOUR OWN PRODUCT THAT DOES WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WANT IT TO DO!
Mmm.... let's see. Because I'm not a large company like MS or Apple?
Oh wait, "I want someone else to do things for me" sure ok whatever, have fun being a sheep.
Eh, seriously, I'm sure you design *all* your stuff from basics yourself too. Even if it's the kind of thing that normally needs multi-billion dollar factories to fabricate, and countless millions to develop, like a tablet and its parts. Good on you!
"it's a free market and it's their product and you're not obliged to buy it so you have no right to criticise "
Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that, most likly because I didn't mean that.
That's because it wasn't *meant* to be a quote from you. It was the generalised form of "the old argument" that what you *were* saying was yet another rehash of.
You did effectively say the first bit as "it's Microsoft's product, they can build it however they want - you're not obligated to buy it". And I quite clearly pointed out that the second part was implied, not stated:-
The ["so you have no right to criticise"] part is either stated explicitly or implied (as in the above case, since the comment was posted in the context of being a response to criticism of MS's behaviour
So if that's really not what you meant, what *was* the purpose of your comment?
But you know, it's Microsoft's product, they can build it however they want - you're not obligated to buy it. [..] You *do* own the hardware, but MS can design, build, and load it however they damn well feel like...
Yawn, it's the old "it's a free market and it's their product and you're not obliged to buy it so you have no right to criticise" response that keeps popping up on Slashdot, either from the mouths of fanboys or from those who (incorrectly) think this is how a free market works.
Let's me be clear- the first (non-italicised part) is valid and reasonable. The problem is when the above types assume that the "no right to criticise" bit follows too. That part is either stated explicitly or implied (as in the above case, since the comment was posted in the context of being a response to criticism of MS's behaviour (*)). Either way, it's wrong.
Yes... yes, they're entitled to do what they like (within reason). And similarly, people are morally entitled to criticise things about that they disagree with. See, it cuts both ways. I'm quite entitled to criticise a company and their products, services and/or practices, regardless of whether I have the intention of buying them or not. The company isn't obligated to sell it, after all.
The implication otherwise is that anyone who doesn't buy a given product in a free market isn't entitled to have an opinion on it. See that car model you know is lousy- and can explain why to your neighbour or other forum members who are thinking about buying one? You should shut up about that because it's a free market and they can design it lousy if they want and you don't have to buy it. Matter of fact, logically the implication applies equally to those who did buy it- since they didn't *have* to. The engine fell out of your brand new Chery QQ after 1500 miles? You weren't obligated to buy it, so you have no right to whine.
In short, no, that's not how it works.
(*) Yes, let's remember that MS themselves haven't actually done this yet- only that someone is speculating that they *might*.
You allude to an important point: Lego is a corporation.
It is NOT a mass noun for the the bricks they sell.
Those are Legos.
Wrong, according to the company that makes them they are "Lego bricks". There is no such word as "Legos".
Fortunately, companies don't get to dictate our language. I get that they're afraid of trademark dilution. So what? They're still Legos.
You can call them that if you like. Many other people (particularly in Britain and outside the US) *do* use the mass noun "Lego" and "Legos" just sounds stupid to us.
The point being since neither term is officially endorsed, they're both equally valid or invalid despite your protestations. BTW, I like how you pompously declare imply that "Legos" is the *correct* term, then- when it's pointed out that this has no official status- change things round and say that "companies don't get to dictate our language [..] they're still Legos." Well, no, and their lawyers weren't asking us to call them "Lego" either, so your point was?:-)
I've noticed that the "Lego / Legos" dispute is a matter that seems to get people annoyed out of proportion to its importance. I suspect that this is because Lego (or *cough*... "Legos") is something we grew up with and have a strong personal connection with, even if we don't play with it any more.
In my case, I call it "Lego" and always have done. However, I don't have any strong feelings about the matter- aside from my belief that those who refer to them as "Legos" should be rounded up and executed, that is.;-)
You must be young. Too many of us ripped our cd's to ogg, only to find that no sub-$100 mp3 player seems to play them. Then you have the fun of re-ripping your multitudes of cds, or transcoding them all to mp3, losing even more quality.
"Only to find"?
Are you saying that you ripped all your files to OGG expecting to be able to do that *before* you checked?
I've nothing against the Ogg audio format- I think it's a good idea, and probably technically better than MP3. However, I ripped all my music files to MP3 because I knew that- though it was far from the best codec around- it was as near universally supported as makes no difference.
Ogg has *never* been as widely supported as MP3, and primarily used by tech-savvy users who ought to know that anyway. If you- and the many others you imply were caught out when you say "us"- rushed into choosing the format without doing your homework, that was your mistake.
Fuck Flight Simulator. This is the same company that made the Horace [wikipedia.org] games!
That confused me- I thought that was made by Melbourne House's development team, and indeed the Wikipedia article doesn't even mention Psion (except in relation to a Psion Series 3 port years later).
Yet World of Spectrum had it on their list of Psion games and the game and front cover mention both companies. Perhaps Psion acquired the rights and sold it through Sinclair?
I remember playing the ZX81 version of it, and while that was undoubtedly basic- because the ZX81 itself *was* basic!- it was quite impressive given the limitations of the machine.
The Speccy games you thought were good until you tried, oh, every other game
As with many home computers, the standard of games in general rose significantly as time went on. Later ones often made the older ones look primitive in comparison as programmers got to grips with the machine, learned from the older games, standards rose and (I assume) better development systems became available.
I never played the Spectrum version of Flight Simulation, but there's a video of it on YouTube and it looks quite decent for 1982.
I thought the stereotypical woman-oriented scam involved taking a photograph of a fiftysomething woman, then placing a massively photoshopped version of the exact same photo beside it and saying how "this 54-year-old woman looks 25!" and "doctors hate her" yadda yadda.
Oh, and some geolocated bullshit claiming that she's a resident of your hometown (except when they clearly can't figure it out and use the location of your ISP hundreds of miles away instead...)
I was hoping that "Power Over the Internet" was analogous to "Power Over Ethernet". That would've been cool, especially if the protocol was compatible with wireless.
Any way we can "strike back" and demolish this MCPC crap?
Yes you can- by shutting up and not filling up every thread with offtopic replies discussing your tedious, misguided scheme to get "revenge". If this was ever legit spam, it's in the hands of trolls now, who know they'll get useful idiots like you to cause way more annoyance than the original posts do (and hence keep doing it).
"If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
So, the question is; how much of the Linux term is licensed under "any later version" terms, and how much isn't?
not so different from what BSD was forced to go through 1990-1992.
I don't know the exact details, but I do recall someone suggesting that BSD's problems in the early 1990s where what gave Linux a brief but important advantage in terms of developer mindshare at a critical point. BSD is successful certainly, but it's dwarfed by Linux support and usage in general terms.
It could. It would just[my emphasis!] take a decade or two. It would just require that every update be licensed v2 and v3. When every line of code has been replaced, you declare the system licensed under v3.
Well, two decades is a heck of a long time for a start! And simply requiring that *updates* were dual-licensed wouldn't be satisfactory, as unless you made a deliberate effort to replace/rewrite v2-only code (rather than letting it die off through being updated and superseded) I'm confident that there would still be a significant amount of v2-only code there in 10-20 years time; after all, Windows still has a lot of legacy code dating back to the year dot.
Of course, this assumes that Linus would want to do this, which to the best of my knowledge he still doesn't. So someone else would have to fork the kernel (let's call it "Forkux" to differentiate it) and do this work themselves- along with willing developers, of course- and possibly not be able to take advantage of some of the new mainstream Linux kernel contributions if they weren't dual-licensed.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be doable; I'm saying it would require a concerted effort that would require (at best) a *lot* of work and also require forking the existing kernel.
If a new OSS 'bazaar' OS were to be started today, the project leaders would be wise to mitigate some of this issue by tracking who 'owns' what code, or by requiring the code copyright to the project.
This assumes that everyone would be as happy to contribute under those terms as people generally have been to contribute to the existing Linux base. Plus the fact that the original Linux wasn't "competing" against an existing established free OS when it started, which Forkux effectively would be (the established competitor now being, of course, Linux itself!) So it wouldn't even be anywhere near as easy (in some ways) as Linux was to get support for, as I suspect most people would want to contribute and add somethng new to Linux instead of an ideological fork.
Of course, you're *absolutely*, 100%, would-stake-your-life-on-it confident that this *isn't* a Joe job or- far more likely IMHO- just a troll?
And you're *entirely* confident that "FloppyCockyJohnson" (what a PR-friendly name *cough*) is a plausible legitimate spammer, despite being happy to waste her time posting spam links that do nothing, due to the fact that Slashdot adds a nofollow to them all?
Of course, when you say that "the SEO is paying him to link to his site" you know this for a *fact*...?
Because only an arrogant and self-righteous but deluded idiot on a feelgood crusade would clutter Slashdot up with replies that are way more annoying and disruptive than the original offtopic post unless they knew for sure- in the face of commonsense evidence- that the OP was a genuine spammer.
Normally I don't waste time feeding the trolls, nor pandering to the idiots that feed them by replying. I quickly mod the lot of you down en masse if I have points, then skip the lot. However, your account pops up like clockwork to respond to virtually every instance of this pretend spam.
Bottom line is that you- and your taken-it-upon-youself crusade to take "revenge" on this troll masquerading as a spammer are way more disruptive than the original troll itself.
I have more respect for the original troll than you. At least they're achieving what they set out to achieve. You? You're a useful idiot.
Linus wants to have his cake and eat it too. If he really was worried about this issue the "right thing to do" would have been to work toward migrating the kernel to GPL3.
Does this have anything direct to do with the story, or are you just using it as an excuse to give a bee in your bonnet some fresh air and exercise? (*)
Besides which, as far as I know, it's unlikely that the kernel *could* move to GPL3 even *if* Linus wanted it to, as it would require the permission of every single one of the countless contributors and/or the replacement of their code.
(*) This sounds like the typical "why are people doing [anything that isn't a cure for cancer] when there's still no cure for cancer", with "cure for cancer" replaced by something that *not* everyone necessarily agrees is a good thing anyway.
People operating on experience, data, and sound math isn't what gives Slashdot a bad name...
Your rationale above seems fair. However, you didn't mention any of that in your original post, so it did come across as if you were drawing the conclusion that a halving of warranty period (or similar) in general meant one would go through twice as many drives.
With Seagate's recent warranty eviceration, they've effectively doubled the price of drives.
No. One may legitimately (and rightly) complain about this, or point out that it has effectively raised the cost of replacements. But suggesting that they have "effectively doubled the price" because- I assume- the guarantee period has approximately halved- is extrapolating the situation in silly ways, and the type of exaggerated, pseudo-logical reasoning that gives Slashdot a bad name.
This assumes that hard drives are effectively only going to last half as long, or that one would have used the guarantee for all the faulty drives. Don't get me wrong, it's a vote of no confidence and strongly implies less reliability and shorter life expectancy. But "effectively doubled the price"? No.
Un-did at least 18 months of Moore's Law, when costs are fully considered.
Moore's Law doesn't apply to hard drives, and it's worth noting that ten to twenty years ago hard drive capacities were growing much, *much* faster than they are today, e.g. moving from circa 120 MB being respectable in 1993 to 3-4 GB being passable in 1998 and 80GB not overly huge by 2002 standards. It's over 5 years since 1 TB drives first came out, and we're still at the 4 TB mark- good growth by normal standards, but not what it was, and not even keeping up with Moore's (if it was applicable) anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole premise of a man having a ward was weird in the 60's
I know some people claimed there was a homoerotic subtext, but I really don't recall Adam West's character actually "having his Ward" on screen. :-O
So Steve Jobs had a home in Memphis, Tennessee and a large fanbase who might be interested in visiting it and turning it into a shrine now that he's dead?
Opening to the public soon, it's... Insanely Graceland.
A lot of us are tired of rehashes
So don't play them and don't whine about flamebait being modded flamebait.
Is this the evergreen fanboy whine of "if you don't like it, don't play/listen to/watch it, and don't criticise" again? (Close relative of "you don't have to buy it, so don't criticise").
Who said that he *was* playing them? Who said that he wasn't entitled to express his opinion? The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it "flamebait".
(Note; this post doesn't even imply that I agree with the OP's opinion, or even that I care about what he was discussing, merely that he's quite entitled to say it).
There IS something capturing about the games of 1990 era. Maybe it's that computers were sufficiently advanced, but not too powerful, which set just the right artistic bounds.
I disagree; I think the reason is that in the 90s, nobody was trying to industrialize game creation, or at least they didn't figure they'd gotten it right. A lot of the shining examples from back then were people that were self-motivated, self-organized, and given some free reign by publishers.
Although you disagree with the GP, who I disagreed with elsewhere, I'm not sure I agree with this either!
For a start, you paint the 90s as the era when gaming was much freer from corporate influence and negativity than it is today. But wasn't that much *more* the case during the early 80s (and even late 70s)?
In fact I'd argue that the 90s (and even the 16-bit, late-80s era) was when things had already moved quite far from the supposed indie utopia you describe and were showing the seeds of today's industry. Wasn't it the early 90s when EA started changing from a relatively well-respected publisher (during the 80s) into the sequel-driven, corporate hate-figure that it is today, starting with the release of endless Madden sequels, then in the mid-90s starting the new-game-every-year licensed FIFA series?
And by the early 90s, the "prodigy indie developer working from his bedroom" phenomenon of the early 80s was already mostly part of a bygone era, as the increasing standards and complexity of games (and the machines they ran on) made this impossible.
In short, I think you're possibly letting nostalgia cloud *your* judgement too- did you also start gaming in the 90s? If that era wasn't as bad as today in terms of corporatisation, it's more just a matter of degree, I suspect.
you mean the late 70s to 80s era? you might be sentimentally attached to 2Ds in the 90 but if you had started gaming earlier they would mostly make you go "meh, another big-sprite rehash".
I'd have to agree with this. This is a 90s-era gamer attached to the style that was around when he/she started gaming. Fair enough, that's true of lots of people, and not just in gaming (applies just as much to music, for example). However, the GP shouldn't kid theirself that it's not a major factor in what they seem to think is a more objective opinion than it probably is.
I was never a rabid gamer, but I have to admit that my tastes were formed in the mid-to-late 80s and still reflect that. The fact that I played computer games with a traditional Atari joystick, and that some of the games were a few years old mean that I'm more attached to 8-bit games of the "late 70s to [late] 80s" era. And I can tell you that I just don't have the same opinion of 90s games. Even the Amiga stuff I was playing 20 years ago (with a few notable exceptions) doesn't do as much for me in retrospect.
Another example- I know we're all supposed to love Nintendo, but the truth is that they don't- and never did- mean much to me, probably because the NES was *never* as big in the UK as it was in Japan and Europe during the late 80s. Similarly, Mario... everyone loves Mario, don't they? Well, not really- I didn't grow up with him, and the Disney-esque, child-oriented nature of the character never appealed to me. You like the character because he reminds you of your childhood? That's fine, but he wasn't a part of mine and he doesn't mean a lot to me.
And I can tell you that the GP is probably kidding themselves if they think that their implication that the 90s was the pinnacle of computer gaming is free from bias. The 90s stuff- both early-90s Mega Drive/Genesis/SNES and late-90s PlayStation does little for me. (I *did* own a PlayStation briefly). I couldn't give a toss for Doom *or* first-person-shooters.
This is as much personal bias reflecting the point at which I played games the most- but my point is that this is just as probably the case with the GP as well!
In ten years time, the people who first gamed in the early-2000s will be saying the same thing, just like every younger generation growing older and becoming the establishment assumes that what was important to them growing up always should be.
Unfortunately no one actually said you have no right to criticise something you have (or haven't) bought.
As I said in my other reply to you, the implication was obvious both by (a) the context and (b) the fact that the comment would have served no purpose if that *hadn't* been the case.
The point is that if you buy a product when you know in advance that it has feature X it's just a bit silly then criticising it for having feature X.
Except that the original article his comment (and the parent comment) were addressing wasn't by someone in that position, it was a general comment on how closed ecosystems could threaten FLOSS, so that doesn't apply.
You need to go on some English compostioin or logic courses
You need to go on a spelling course, smartass :-P
The highlighted part of "it's a free market and it's their product and you're not obliged to buy it so you have no right to criticise " is entirely your own implication or conclusion
No, it's not. The final part was implied by the context of the comment.
He even posted to confirm that it was not what he meant.
And yet he didn't explain what he *did* (supposedly) mean.
The original comment serves no obvious point if one doesn't assume the obvious underlying implication strongly suggested via its context.
MS are able to create products in a free market and we're not obligated to buy them? Well, we know this already. What was the point of saying that unless it was an implied counter-criticism? Oh, and it's purely coincidental that the OP was agreeing with another person's dismissive attitude in the first line of the same post.
It's like my saying that "I like chocolate" is just a shorthand for "I like chocolate and so I am a child molester"
Not at all- I can't even think of any context (no matter how contrived) where that would apply. Whereas I already gave my reasoning above for what I considered the OP was implying.
It's simply nonsense. It literally makes no logical sense.
The reason being that you missed the point and made a stupid analogy.
Looks if the products that are currently being made do not fit into what you want to do, and you also see that there is a large group that wants to do exactly what you want to do. THEN WHY THE FUCK DON"T YOU MAKE YOUR OWN PRODUCT THAT DOES WHAT YOU AND THE OTHERS WANT IT TO DO!
Mmm.... let's see. Because I'm not a large company like MS or Apple?
Oh wait, "I want someone else to do things for me" sure ok whatever, have fun being a sheep.
Eh, seriously, I'm sure you design *all* your stuff from basics yourself too. Even if it's the kind of thing that normally needs multi-billion dollar factories to fabricate, and countless millions to develop, like a tablet and its parts. Good on you!
"it's a free market and it's their product and you're not obliged to buy it so you have no right to criticise "
Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that, most likly because I didn't mean that.
That's because it wasn't *meant* to be a quote from you. It was the generalised form of "the old argument" that what you *were* saying was yet another rehash of. You did effectively say the first bit as "it's Microsoft's product, they can build it however they want - you're not obligated to buy it". And I quite clearly pointed out that the second part was implied, not stated:-
The ["so you have no right to criticise"] part is either stated explicitly or implied (as in the above case, since the comment was posted in the context of being a response to criticism of MS's behaviour
So if that's really not what you meant, what *was* the purpose of your comment?
But you know, it's Microsoft's product, they can build it however they want - you're not obligated to buy it. [..] You *do* own the hardware, but MS can design, build, and load it however they damn well feel like...
Yawn, it's the old "it's a free market and it's their product and you're not obliged to buy it so you have no right to criticise " response that keeps popping up on Slashdot, either from the mouths of fanboys or from those who (incorrectly) think this is how a free market works.
Let's me be clear- the first (non-italicised part) is valid and reasonable. The problem is when the above types assume that the "no right to criticise" bit follows too. That part is either stated explicitly or implied (as in the above case, since the comment was posted in the context of being a response to criticism of MS's behaviour (*)). Either way, it's wrong.
Yes... yes, they're entitled to do what they like (within reason). And similarly, people are morally entitled to criticise things about that they disagree with. See, it cuts both ways. I'm quite entitled to criticise a company and their products, services and/or practices, regardless of whether I have the intention of buying them or not. The company isn't obligated to sell it, after all.
The implication otherwise is that anyone who doesn't buy a given product in a free market isn't entitled to have an opinion on it. See that car model you know is lousy- and can explain why to your neighbour or other forum members who are thinking about buying one? You should shut up about that because it's a free market and they can design it lousy if they want and you don't have to buy it. Matter of fact, logically the implication applies equally to those who did buy it- since they didn't *have* to. The engine fell out of your brand new Chery QQ after 1500 miles? You weren't obligated to buy it, so you have no right to whine.
In short, no, that's not how it works.
(*) Yes, let's remember that MS themselves haven't actually done this yet- only that someone is speculating that they *might*.
There's a good story arc in the Achewood comic that covers a masterfully baited scam artist.
Was he masterfully baited by a master baiter?
;-))
(Sorry, that one was too obvious
You allude to an important point: Lego is a corporation. It is NOT a mass noun for the the bricks they sell. Those are Legos.
Wrong, according to the company that makes them they are "Lego bricks". There is no such word as "Legos".
Fortunately, companies don't get to dictate our language.
I get that they're afraid of trademark dilution. So what?
They're still Legos.
You can call them that if you like. Many other people (particularly in Britain and outside the US) *do* use the mass noun "Lego" and "Legos" just sounds stupid to us.
:-)
;-)
The point being since neither term is officially endorsed, they're both equally valid or invalid despite your protestations. BTW, I like how you pompously declare imply that "Legos" is the *correct* term, then- when it's pointed out that this has no official status- change things round and say that "companies don't get to dictate our language [..] they're still Legos." Well, no, and their lawyers weren't asking us to call them "Lego" either, so your point was?
I've noticed that the "Lego / Legos" dispute is a matter that seems to get people annoyed out of proportion to its importance. I suspect that this is because Lego (or *cough*... "Legos") is something we grew up with and have a strong personal connection with, even if we don't play with it any more.
In my case, I call it "Lego" and always have done. However, I don't have any strong feelings about the matter- aside from my belief that those who refer to them as "Legos" should be rounded up and executed, that is.
You must be young. Too many of us ripped our cd's to ogg, only to find that no sub-$100 mp3 player seems to play them. Then you have the fun of re-ripping your multitudes of cds, or transcoding them all to mp3, losing even more quality.
"Only to find"?
Are you saying that you ripped all your files to OGG expecting to be able to do that *before* you checked?
I've nothing against the Ogg audio format- I think it's a good idea, and probably technically better than MP3. However, I ripped all my music files to MP3 because I knew that- though it was far from the best codec around- it was as near universally supported as makes no difference.
Ogg has *never* been as widely supported as MP3, and primarily used by tech-savvy users who ought to know that anyway. If you- and the many others you imply were caught out when you say "us"- rushed into choosing the format without doing your homework, that was your mistake.
Fuck Flight Simulator. This is the same company that made the Horace [wikipedia.org] games!
That confused me- I thought that was made by Melbourne House's development team, and indeed the Wikipedia article doesn't even mention Psion (except in relation to a Psion Series 3 port years later).
Yet World of Spectrum had it on their list of Psion games and the game and front cover mention both companies. Perhaps Psion acquired the rights and sold it through Sinclair?
as Psion Flight Simulator??
Flight Simulation? Yes, it is.
I remember playing the ZX81 version of it, and while that was undoubtedly basic- because the ZX81 itself *was* basic!- it was quite impressive given the limitations of the machine.
The Speccy games you thought were good until you tried, oh, every other game
What were you comparing them against? Later games? Psion's games were all (AFAIK) released very early on in the Spectrum's life and look decent by the standards of that time.
As with many home computers, the standard of games in general rose significantly as time went on. Later ones often made the older ones look primitive in comparison as programmers got to grips with the machine, learned from the older games, standards rose and (I assume) better development systems became available.
I never played the Spectrum version of Flight Simulation, but there's a video of it on YouTube and it looks quite decent for 1982.
I thought the stereotypical woman-oriented scam involved taking a photograph of a fiftysomething woman, then placing a massively photoshopped version of the exact same photo beside it and saying how "this 54-year-old woman looks 25!" and "doctors hate her" yadda yadda.
Oh, and some geolocated bullshit claiming that she's a resident of your hometown (except when they clearly can't figure it out and use the location of your ISP hundreds of miles away instead...)
I was hoping that "Power Over the Internet" was analogous to "Power Over Ethernet". That would've been cool, especially if the protocol was compatible with wireless.
The good news is that they *do* have that facility working over long-range wireless- here are some photos of it in action!
Any way we can "strike back" and demolish this MCPC crap?
Yes you can- by shutting up and not filling up every thread with offtopic replies discussing your tedious, misguided scheme to get "revenge". If this was ever legit spam, it's in the hands of trolls now, who know they'll get useful idiots like you to cause way more annoyance than the original posts do (and hence keep doing it).
Seriously, this post applies to you as well.
"If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
So, the question is; how much of the Linux term is licensed under "any later version" terms, and how much isn't?
not so different from what BSD was forced to go through 1990-1992.
I don't know the exact details, but I do recall someone suggesting that BSD's problems in the early 1990s where what gave Linux a brief but important advantage in terms of developer mindshare at a critical point. BSD is successful certainly, but it's dwarfed by Linux support and usage in general terms.
It could. It would just [my emphasis!] take a decade or two. It would just require that every update be licensed v2 and v3. When every line of code has been replaced, you declare the system licensed under v3.
Well, two decades is a heck of a long time for a start! And simply requiring that *updates* were dual-licensed wouldn't be satisfactory, as unless you made a deliberate effort to replace/rewrite v2-only code (rather than letting it die off through being updated and superseded) I'm confident that there would still be a significant amount of v2-only code there in 10-20 years time; after all, Windows still has a lot of legacy code dating back to the year dot.
Of course, this assumes that Linus would want to do this, which to the best of my knowledge he still doesn't. So someone else would have to fork the kernel (let's call it "Forkux" to differentiate it) and do this work themselves- along with willing developers, of course- and possibly not be able to take advantage of some of the new mainstream Linux kernel contributions if they weren't dual-licensed.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be doable; I'm saying it would require a concerted effort that would require (at best) a *lot* of work and also require forking the existing kernel.
If a new OSS 'bazaar' OS were to be started today, the project leaders would be wise to mitigate some of this issue by tracking who 'owns' what code, or by requiring the code copyright to the project.
This assumes that everyone would be as happy to contribute under those terms as people generally have been to contribute to the existing Linux base. Plus the fact that the original Linux wasn't "competing" against an existing established free OS when it started, which Forkux effectively would be (the established competitor now being, of course, Linux itself!) So it wouldn't even be anywhere near as easy (in some ways) as Linux was to get support for, as I suspect most people would want to contribute and add somethng new to Linux instead of an ideological fork.
Of course, you're *absolutely*, 100%, would-stake-your-life-on-it confident that this *isn't* a Joe job or- far more likely IMHO- just a troll?
And you're *entirely* confident that "FloppyCockyJohnson" (what a PR-friendly name *cough*) is a plausible legitimate spammer, despite being happy to waste her time posting spam links that do nothing, due to the fact that Slashdot adds a nofollow to them all?
Of course, when you say that "the SEO is paying him to link to his site" you know this for a *fact*...?
Because only an arrogant and self-righteous but deluded idiot on a feelgood crusade would clutter Slashdot up with replies that are way more annoying and disruptive than the original offtopic post unless they knew for sure- in the face of commonsense evidence- that the OP was a genuine spammer.
Normally I don't waste time feeding the trolls, nor pandering to the idiots that feed them by replying. I quickly mod the lot of you down en masse if I have points, then skip the lot. However, your account pops up like clockwork to respond to virtually every instance of this pretend spam.
Bottom line is that you- and your taken-it-upon-youself crusade to take "revenge" on this troll masquerading as a spammer are way more disruptive than the original troll itself.
I have more respect for the original troll than you. At least they're achieving what they set out to achieve. You? You're a useful idiot.
Linus wants to have his cake and eat it too. If he really was worried about this issue the "right thing to do" would have been to work toward migrating the kernel to GPL3.
Does this have anything direct to do with the story, or are you just using it as an excuse to give a bee in your bonnet some fresh air and exercise? (*)
Besides which, as far as I know, it's unlikely that the kernel *could* move to GPL3 even *if* Linus wanted it to, as it would require the permission of every single one of the countless contributors and/or the replacement of their code.
(*) This sounds like the typical "why are people doing [anything that isn't a cure for cancer] when there's still no cure for cancer", with "cure for cancer" replaced by something that *not* everyone necessarily agrees is a good thing anyway.
People operating on experience, data, and sound math isn't what gives Slashdot a bad name...
Your rationale above seems fair. However, you didn't mention any of that in your original post, so it did come across as if you were drawing the conclusion that a halving of warranty period (or similar) in general meant one would go through twice as many drives.
With Seagate's recent warranty eviceration, they've effectively doubled the price of drives.
No. One may legitimately (and rightly) complain about this, or point out that it has effectively raised the cost of replacements. But suggesting that they have "effectively doubled the price" because- I assume- the guarantee period has approximately halved- is extrapolating the situation in silly ways, and the type of exaggerated, pseudo-logical reasoning that gives Slashdot a bad name.
This assumes that hard drives are effectively only going to last half as long, or that one would have used the guarantee for all the faulty drives. Don't get me wrong, it's a vote of no confidence and strongly implies less reliability and shorter life expectancy. But "effectively doubled the price"? No.
Un-did at least 18 months of Moore's Law, when costs are fully considered.
Moore's Law doesn't apply to hard drives, and it's worth noting that ten to twenty years ago hard drive capacities were growing much, *much* faster than they are today, e.g. moving from circa 120 MB being respectable in 1993 to 3-4 GB being passable in 1998 and 80GB not overly huge by 2002 standards. It's over 5 years since 1 TB drives first came out, and we're still at the 4 TB mark- good growth by normal standards, but not what it was, and not even keeping up with Moore's (if it was applicable) anyway.