... and this code has finally cleared AMD's legal review.
If they released open drivers the same as they release closed source drivers, they would get their asses sued to oblivion. Everything else flows from that.
Thank you for pointing this out. I have heard this absurd socialization argument many times. It is very strange if you think about it. Over the history of humanity, it is only very recently that children mainly interact with social groups very close to their age. It used to be that a child would learn a trade from their parents, and although they had friends/playmates, a lot of their time was spend with their parents. Early is US history, there were many one room school houses where children of all ages would be taught by a single teacher. Why do we think that public schools with near-age peers groups is "normal"?
I heard that a Canadian study on home schooling was recently released and they found very positive results. The results showed that home schooled children were better community citizens (charities, gave time, etc). The study found nothing wrong with their social skills.
When the World Trade Center got hit by airplanes, and people were in panic and looking for leadership, the primary message from the establishment was not "Help your neighbours". It was not "Be charitable". It was "Keep shopping". This should give you an idea what the establishments priorities are, why public schools are the way they are, and what kind of adults they are intended to mold children into.
If you trust the disciples of Ayn Rand and John Nash to administer the education of your children, you shouldn't be surprised if they turn into psychopaths.
I know of companies like that too. The best analogy I can come up with is, surprisingly, not one based on cars but instead on Islamic countries: by denying half of their population (women) from meaningful work and positions of power, they hamstring themselves competitively and will never join the first rank of nations.
Similarly, companies that close themselves to open source solutions operate at a competitive disadvantage. It's as simple as that.
Perhaps they could introduce child labour programs. Then the economic return from those women who are breeding the next generation of workers instead of entering the workforce could be realized sooner.
Isn't encryption the antithesis of openness? How can you have security without openness?
Perhaps it's that encryption is a tool used to maintain control and keep us in the uninformed and insecure state that we are currently in, only the people attempting to maintain control by rolling out these mechanisms are unable to keep up. As efforts to maintain secrets fail with greater frequency, we become more secure.
Wikileaks is a tool for increasing security. Encryption is a tool to prevent that from happening. It has no place in a secure society, only in a broken society that is engaged in ongoing destructive internal conflict.
I read a very compelling quote recently about "basic human rights". They defined basic human rights as something that is so taken for granted by the population that they will react with violence if you attempt to trample those entitlements. If that feeling doesn't exist, there is no right.
Personally, I consider any nation that enforces private property rights to be a nation of thieves. You think of them as a natural right, while I consider that they make you no better than that Nordic chap who kept his daughter in his basement as a sex slave.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what either of us think. What matters is what we will violently fight to defend, and what we will not fight to defend. Paper laws don't even come into it.
I can disprove it in 3 steps
1)If this were a dream, hot chicks would fuck you constantly.
2)You are currently on slashdot, thus not getting fucked.
3)QED you did not dream this world.
You do understand, when it comes to fucking, there is a person who does the fucking, and a person who gets fucked, right? If he's getting constantly fucked by hot chicks, there is something extremely freaky going on...
Microsoft, via the Gates Foundation, killed legislation that would have removed intellectual property restrictions from drug markets in poor countries. They actively and for their own gain perpetuate the death and suffering of millions and millions of people. Who gives a flying fuck what they did about innovation in the IT industry compared to that? They're no better than any other mass murderers.
God is a word that you use to represent your view of how the rules of reality work. You describe the nature of all that is by using a model in which you describe the attitude of the creator of all that is, and the rules that lead to survival behavior are implied by the attitude of the creator.
The Christian God was a great achievement. Prior to it's propagation through mankind, each distinct tribe would have one or more Gods that were used in the same way, to describe the rules that lead to survival behavior to illiterates.
I walk into the holy desert without covering my head, and the Sun God is offended and strikes me down with sunstroke. I explain this to my tribe, and wisdom is gained. Then I try to tell the next tribe over, and they don't even have a Sun God, so they can't learn from me.
Along comes Christianity, and it absorbs all those Gods into Angels and Demons and Saints and whatnot, and the end result is a common technical language for human knowledge that binds the tribes together and makes all their wisdom available to all.
This is what God is. God is model for understanding of the universe. When someone sits there and tells you there is no God, they're being difficult. The truth is, to a religious person, God is synonymous with "The Universe". It's just a different language, a different label. When you tell them "God doesn't exist", you are really saying "The Universe does not exist", but in a language that you do not understand.
It sounds like they're using logical fallacies, appealing to authority, but really, inside their head, they're not. Really, when they say that things are this way because of Gods authority, it's no different than when we say you can't go faster than the speed of light because the rules of the universe do not allow it.
So, have some respect for your opponent, and don't refuse to speak his language. Don't tell him there is no God. Tell him that it is your opinion that his understanding of God is deeply flawed, and that the understanding of his prophet is deeply flawed. Then you can get into a lively little discussion about how the world is, rather than arguing terminology forever.
The moral of the story is, cannibalism really does allow you to take your enemies strength. That's why we eat Jesus' flesh on Sundays, so we can absorb his holy virus and become like God.
So, the fault lies with the contributors who assigned their copyright to Monty's organization. If they had not done that, none of this drama would exist.
If you live in a place where there is abundant free food, and free housing, and free manufactured goods, and freedom to travel and communicate with your fellows, and you can requisition materials and tools and space to work on pet projects individually or with your buddies during your spare time and pretty much always have them approved, and you have free medicine, and you only work 25 hours a week at tasks decided democratically by you and your fellows, but your taxes are 100% and you earn no money, and you live that way your entire life, are you poor, or rich?
The government gets to tell me what to watch, huh?
Publicly funded and free media does not mean the government is telling you what to watch. No one has ever pointed a gun at anyone and forced them to watch the BBC.
Privately owned and copyrighted media, however, does mean the government is telling you what not to watch. Plenty of people have had guns pointed at them for watching Hollywood productions without authorization.
Open source phones will take off. They will take off when someone delivers a model that uses a mesh network to render the existing carriers obsolete, at which point most of the existing carriers will go out of business. Pretty obvious if you think about it.
So wasting taxpayer money on programs that few people watch is an advantage?
Do you feel the same way about educational resources? Do you feel the same way about scientific research? Given the choice between educational programming that that few people watch, or fart jokes that appeal to a broad audience, which is a better use of community resources? Stretched over a 10 year span, which do you think is a more valuable resource... 10 years worth of educational programming that remains relevant, or 10 years of fart jokes about former celebrities that no one pays any further attention to?
Perhaps we could make the quality programming free, and allow people to take out student loans so they can be institutionalized and watch fart jokes if they are so inclined?
It's one of those "If reality was consistent with my preconceptions I could tell you exactly how to solve this problem" kind of situations. When you've been working on a project for a long time, everything is obvious to you, and you have no framework by which to judge what isn't obvious to someone else. You also end up using terminology that has become an internal convention for reasons that make perfect sense when you're writing code but doesn't mean the same thing to everyone else as it does to you. Trying to write documentation without the involvement of end users is like trying to write and deliver code on paper without ever having had access to a computer to run it on.
Until Grandma or Grandpa can blindly install something without understanding exactly what they're doing, Linux on the desktop will not be practical.
"Install this" is all the understanding your average user wants to have of the actual installation process.
Until Grandma or Grandpa can blindly grab the screwdriver by the pointy end and use it to attach a coat hook to the wall, screws and screwdrivers in the home will not be practical.
"Magic Genie, make it so" is all the understanding your average consumer wants to have of anything whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say the relevant section is here:
... and this code has finally cleared AMD's legal review.
If they released open drivers the same as they release closed source drivers, they would get their asses sued to oblivion. Everything else flows from that.
If all you pansies want to geld yourselves, please do. I will be happy to impregnate all your women for you. I'd have no problem with this guys life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7547148.stm
Thank you for pointing this out. I have heard this absurd socialization argument many times. It is very strange if you think about it. Over the history of humanity, it is only very recently that children mainly interact with social groups very close to their age. It used to be that a child would learn a trade from their parents, and although they had friends/playmates, a lot of their time was spend with their parents. Early is US history, there were many one room school houses where children of all ages would be taught by a single teacher. Why do we think that public schools with near-age peers groups is "normal"?
I heard that a Canadian study on home schooling was recently released and they found very positive results. The results showed that home schooled children were better community citizens (charities, gave time, etc). The study found nothing wrong with their social skills.
When the World Trade Center got hit by airplanes, and people were in panic and looking for leadership, the primary message from the establishment was not "Help your neighbours". It was not "Be charitable". It was "Keep shopping". This should give you an idea what the establishments priorities are, why public schools are the way they are, and what kind of adults they are intended to mold children into.
If you trust the disciples of Ayn Rand and John Nash to administer the education of your children, you shouldn't be surprised if they turn into psychopaths.
It's a sign of the fall of civilization. Either dance and let Rome burn, or start packing your stuff and move to the forest.
I know of companies like that too. The best analogy I can come up with is, surprisingly, not one based on cars but instead on Islamic countries: by denying half of their population (women) from meaningful work and positions of power, they hamstring themselves competitively and will never join the first rank of nations.
Similarly, companies that close themselves to open source solutions operate at a competitive disadvantage. It's as simple as that.
Perhaps they could introduce child labour programs. Then the economic return from those women who are breeding the next generation of workers instead of entering the workforce could be realized sooner.
The Nazi's did this already
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5194147/Farmer-brings-Nazi-cows-back-to-Britain-after-2000-years.html
It would be interesting if this ends up being forked into a GPLv3 project and forms the basis for the first ever pure GPLv3 distribution.
Isn't encryption the antithesis of openness? How can you have security without openness?
Perhaps it's that encryption is a tool used to maintain control and keep us in the uninformed and insecure state that we are currently in, only the people attempting to maintain control by rolling out these mechanisms are unable to keep up. As efforts to maintain secrets fail with greater frequency, we become more secure.
Wikileaks is a tool for increasing security. Encryption is a tool to prevent that from happening. It has no place in a secure society, only in a broken society that is engaged in ongoing destructive internal conflict.
But what am I supposed to do with all my foot copies :(
Keep them off the carpet...
foot.shoot() isn't a very good function call. That would seem to me to imply that your foot shoots something to me.
Maybe gun.shoot(foot)
gun.shoot(&foot);
I'd hate to work for a company that was always threatening me. I feel bad for the people who work there... what a miserable way to live.
I read a very compelling quote recently about "basic human rights". They defined basic human rights as something that is so taken for granted by the population that they will react with violence if you attempt to trample those entitlements. If that feeling doesn't exist, there is no right.
Personally, I consider any nation that enforces private property rights to be a nation of thieves. You think of them as a natural right, while I consider that they make you no better than that Nordic chap who kept his daughter in his basement as a sex slave.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what either of us think. What matters is what we will violently fight to defend, and what we will not fight to defend. Paper laws don't even come into it.
I can disprove it in 3 steps
1)If this were a dream, hot chicks would fuck you constantly.
2)You are currently on slashdot, thus not getting fucked.
3)QED you did not dream this world.
You do understand, when it comes to fucking, there is a person who does the fucking, and a person who gets fucked, right? If he's getting constantly fucked by hot chicks, there is something extremely freaky going on...
Microsoft, via the Gates Foundation, killed legislation that would have removed intellectual property restrictions from drug markets in poor countries. They actively and for their own gain perpetuate the death and suffering of millions and millions of people. Who gives a flying fuck what they did about innovation in the IT industry compared to that? They're no better than any other mass murderers.
God is a word that you use to represent your view of how the rules of reality work. You describe the nature of all that is by using a model in which you describe the attitude of the creator of all that is, and the rules that lead to survival behavior are implied by the attitude of the creator.
The Christian God was a great achievement. Prior to it's propagation through mankind, each distinct tribe would have one or more Gods that were used in the same way, to describe the rules that lead to survival behavior to illiterates.
I walk into the holy desert without covering my head, and the Sun God is offended and strikes me down with sunstroke. I explain this to my tribe, and wisdom is gained. Then I try to tell the next tribe over, and they don't even have a Sun God, so they can't learn from me.
Along comes Christianity, and it absorbs all those Gods into Angels and Demons and Saints and whatnot, and the end result is a common technical language for human knowledge that binds the tribes together and makes all their wisdom available to all.
This is what God is. God is model for understanding of the universe. When someone sits there and tells you there is no God, they're being difficult. The truth is, to a religious person, God is synonymous with "The Universe". It's just a different language, a different label. When you tell them "God doesn't exist", you are really saying "The Universe does not exist", but in a language that you do not understand.
It sounds like they're using logical fallacies, appealing to authority, but really, inside their head, they're not. Really, when they say that things are this way because of Gods authority, it's no different than when we say you can't go faster than the speed of light because the rules of the universe do not allow it.
So, have some respect for your opponent, and don't refuse to speak his language. Don't tell him there is no God. Tell him that it is your opinion that his understanding of God is deeply flawed, and that the understanding of his prophet is deeply flawed. Then you can get into a lively little discussion about how the world is, rather than arguing terminology forever.
The moral of the story is, cannibalism really does allow you to take your enemies strength. That's why we eat Jesus' flesh on Sundays, so we can absorb his holy virus and become like God.
So, the fault lies with the contributors who assigned their copyright to Monty's organization. If they had not done that, none of this drama would exist.
If you live in a place where there is abundant free food, and free housing, and free manufactured goods, and freedom to travel and communicate with your fellows, and you can requisition materials and tools and space to work on pet projects individually or with your buddies during your spare time and pretty much always have them approved, and you have free medicine, and you only work 25 hours a week at tasks decided democratically by you and your fellows, but your taxes are 100% and you earn no money, and you live that way your entire life, are you poor, or rich?
Déjà vu. My 9 year old explained to me that Santa uses TARDIS technology just last week.
I was thinking something more along the lines of give the devices away for free and to hell with the FCC and the profit too...
The government gets to tell me what to watch, huh?
Publicly funded and free media does not mean the government is telling you what to watch. No one has ever pointed a gun at anyone and forced them to watch the BBC.
Privately owned and copyrighted media, however, does mean the government is telling you what not to watch. Plenty of people have had guns pointed at them for watching Hollywood productions without authorization.
Open source phones will take off. They will take off when someone delivers a model that uses a mesh network to render the existing carriers obsolete, at which point most of the existing carriers will go out of business. Pretty obvious if you think about it.
So wasting taxpayer money on programs that few people watch is an advantage?
Do you feel the same way about educational resources? Do you feel the same way about scientific research? Given the choice between educational programming that that few people watch, or fart jokes that appeal to a broad audience, which is a better use of community resources? Stretched over a 10 year span, which do you think is a more valuable resource... 10 years worth of educational programming that remains relevant, or 10 years of fart jokes about former celebrities that no one pays any further attention to?
Perhaps we could make the quality programming free, and allow people to take out student loans so they can be institutionalized and watch fart jokes if they are so inclined?
It's one of those "If reality was consistent with my preconceptions I could tell you exactly how to solve this problem" kind of situations. When you've been working on a project for a long time, everything is obvious to you, and you have no framework by which to judge what isn't obvious to someone else. You also end up using terminology that has become an internal convention for reasons that make perfect sense when you're writing code but doesn't mean the same thing to everyone else as it does to you. Trying to write documentation without the involvement of end users is like trying to write and deliver code on paper without ever having had access to a computer to run it on.
Until Grandma or Grandpa can blindly install something without understanding exactly what they're doing, Linux on the desktop will not be practical.
"Install this" is all the understanding your average user wants to have of the actual installation process.
Until Grandma or Grandpa can blindly grab the screwdriver by the pointy end and use it to attach a coat hook to the wall, screws and screwdrivers in the home will not be practical.
"Magic Genie, make it so" is all the understanding your average consumer wants to have of anything whatsoever.