Reform the patent system. Don't burn lawyers at the stake.
I don't see these as being mutually exclusive and lets face it, reform is a lot easier to sell when you've just impaled and incinerated the oppositions's counsel.
corporations are required by law to maximise profit for their shareholders
This gets trotted out constantly, and it is bullshit every time.
A corporation is required to fulfil the conditions of its constitution to some extent, but there's always a division of power between the board and the general meeting (shareholders).
Some corps have pure profit-driven agendas, but others are non-profit, profit sharing or have additional social agendas. The division of power allows the flexibility needed to keep operating, while shareholder meetings set the overall direction of the company.
If the board diverges too far from the goals of the shareholders, then it is the responsibility of the shareholders to take civil action.
The concept that everything which exists is the product of an intelligent creator used to be the only belief in town. It was rejected by thinkers because it provided a single answer instead of raising more questions.
That's the difference, you see. Religion provides answers, and in the case of Christianity, one answer. Science, on the other hand, gives us new questions. The most common criticism religious people make of the theory of evolution is that it's not true because it doesn't give you one nice clean answer.
The reason it doesn't is that it was never intended to. A theory is a framework which uses past observations to ask new questions. Sometimes scientists try to predict the answers, but it's the questions that matter.
That's why ID isn't science. All it is, is one answer and no more questions, so it's religion. There's nothing wrong with that, religion is valuable to people who need that answer, but to pretend it is something it's not is dirty, and it's crooked, and that is against the spirit of Christianity. It should be rejected by all true Christians and all true scientists.
Yet the assumption of evolution is that what has so far eluded the best INTELLIGENT scientists has somehow taken place by *any* other imagined processes, except one --- the activity of mind or intelligence.
Could you please rephrase this. I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Without them you aren't guaranteed support from Microsoft.
Exactly, yet even as recently as Tuesday, Jason Matusow from Microsoft was complaining that Linux was not open enough because vendors like Red Hat and Novell would not support customisations.
"Don't bother trying to understand why the liver works the way it does. It's because it was designed that way."
"Don't bother trying to understand why genes express themselves the way they do. It's because they were designed that way."
"Don't bother trying to understand why axons, dendrites and myelin can combine to make conciousness, curiosity and consideration. It's because they were designed that way."
My next purchase will likely be a radeon 9250. I hear the OSS drivers for it are good.
My home machine has a PowerColor 9250 with VIVO that I bought it for about AU$70.00 and it works fine. I was running Ubuntu originally, but I've installed SuSe 10, and will give Mandriva a try soon (probably revert to SuSe unless Mandriva has something special though). I have no idea which driver it's using - but each distro install took care of that for me, so its probably the open source one.
Someone please explain to this old wage slave coder how on earth development as an economic activity fits into the emperor's new business model?
Even before I was particularly interested in FOSS software, I always provided my clients with a copy of the source code and project files. As far as I was concerned, they had paid me, so they had a right to the product of my efforts. If they decided to take that code and get someone cheaper or better to develop it, that was their right and I should get cheaper or better if I wanted to stay in the market.
When I worked out what FOSS was about, I gave my clients the option of saving money by using a customised version of the FOSS product and contributing code back to the project or starting from scratch, keeping the code in-house and paying the extra development costs. I didn't care which they chose because I got paid anyway. I've never been short on work, and rarely had a customer go to someone else.
His entire argument is that if you make changes to the source code, Red Hat support won't debug your modifications for you as part of their basic support package.
Yep, it's yet more FUD. Lets face it, if I install hardware without Windows Certified drivers and my computer becomes unstable, will Microsoft support fix it for me?
Focus the linux open source community on one or two distros max, then i really believe everything else will fall into place.
I wish people would stop moderating this quackery as insightful. It's FUD and it's a trap.
The computer OS field has been a monopoly for so long, you people don't even recognise a free market when it's running on your computers. The FOSS environment has competition between distro makers driving improvements and users benefiting, just the way capitalism is supposed to work. Almost every distro has some innovation to distinguish it, and because the software is truly free, other distro makers are free to adopt those improvements, or learn from the failures.
Limiting the number of distros will drag the rate of innovation of free software down to the level of the monopoly OS. Lets face it, the reason there are so many Linux distros is because people want to make them, and they have the freedom to do so.
why don't they just leave the maps thing alone - the market is saturated
Yeah, because now they'll just keep competing with each other, each trying to outdo the rest, In the end, the only people who'll benefit from that situation will be the bloody users. That would suck, wouldn't it?
Because large nombers of valid, interesting comments are being modded to oblivion because they don't support a particular vendor's product. The fact you don't see that as a bad thing speaks volumes for your own bias.
I'd label it as 'surprising', personally, as I'm used to seeing any pro-Microsoft/Windows posters somehow being modded as trolls
No, you're not used to that. You're saying it because it suits your purpose to pretend Microsoft is under attack here.
Slashdot Mirror
Reform the patent system. Don't burn lawyers at the stake.
I don't see these as being mutually exclusive and lets face it, reform is a lot easier to sell when you've just impaled and incinerated the oppositions's counsel.
corporations are required by law to maximise profit for their shareholders
This gets trotted out constantly, and it is bullshit every time.
A corporation is required to fulfil the conditions of its constitution to some extent, but there's always a division of power between the board and the general meeting (shareholders).
Some corps have pure profit-driven agendas, but others are non-profit, profit sharing or have additional social agendas. The division of power allows the flexibility needed to keep operating, while shareholder meetings set the overall direction of the company.
If the board diverges too far from the goals of the shareholders, then it is the responsibility of the shareholders to take civil action.
So Dorothy didn't make it?
And you know this because...?
I'm dead and I'm not getting any.
To paraphrase Stephen Hawking;
The concept that everything which exists is the product of an intelligent creator used to be the only belief in town. It was rejected by thinkers because it provided a single answer instead of raising more questions.
That's the difference, you see. Religion provides answers, and in the case of Christianity, one answer. Science, on the other hand, gives us new questions. The most common criticism religious people make of the theory of evolution is that it's not true because it doesn't give you one nice clean answer.
The reason it doesn't is that it was never intended to. A theory is a framework which uses past observations to ask new questions. Sometimes scientists try to predict the answers, but it's the questions that matter.
That's why ID isn't science. All it is, is one answer and no more questions, so it's religion. There's nothing wrong with that, religion is valuable to people who need that answer, but to pretend it is something it's not is dirty, and it's crooked, and that is against the spirit of Christianity. It should be rejected by all true Christians and all true scientists.
Yet the assumption of evolution is that what has so far eluded the best INTELLIGENT scientists has somehow taken place by *any* other imagined processes, except one --- the activity of mind or intelligence.
Could you please rephrase this. I don't understand what you're trying to say.
how many non lethal devices does the government need in its arsenal?
Just one, but it has to work. Most of them don't.
I'm just wondering how many times you can saftly "temporarily" blind someone with a laser.
Well, the fine print warning on the back of the rifle does say
"Do not stare at the rampaging laser rifle firing militia with your remaining good eye"
why doesn't the geneva convention just ban all pain inducing weapons straight out? that right there would prevent lots of war.
No, it would just prevent Geneva conventions.
Without them you aren't guaranteed support from Microsoft.
/ 2258241&tid=109
Exactly, yet even as recently as Tuesday, Jason Matusow from Microsoft was complaining that Linux was not open enough because vendors like Red Hat and Novell would not support customisations.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/07
I even got modded Troll by some Microsoftie for pointing out exactly this issue.
the true sadness lies in the idea of what is and isn't science being determined by politicians
The true sadness is that Kansas will produce a generation of children who have been taught;
"Don't bother questioning why things work the way they do. The answer is beyond your understanding."
So usenet is dead?
alt.binaries.necrophilia has been very quiet lately.
My next purchase will likely be a radeon 9250. I hear the OSS drivers for it are good.
My home machine has a PowerColor 9250 with VIVO that I bought it for about AU$70.00 and it works fine. I was running Ubuntu originally, but I've installed SuSe 10, and will give Mandriva a try soon (probably revert to SuSe unless Mandriva has something special though). I have no idea which driver it's using - but each distro install took care of that for me, so its probably the open source one.
Someone please explain to this old wage slave coder how on earth development as an economic activity fits into the emperor's new business model?
Even before I was particularly interested in FOSS software, I always provided my clients with a copy of the source code and project files. As far as I was concerned, they had paid me, so they had a right to the product of my efforts. If they decided to take that code and get someone cheaper or better to develop it, that was their right and I should get cheaper or better if I wanted to stay in the market.
When I worked out what FOSS was about, I gave my clients the option of saving money by using a customised version of the FOSS product and contributing code back to the project or starting from scratch, keeping the code in-house and paying the extra development costs. I didn't care which they chose because I got paid anyway. I've never been short on work, and rarely had a customer go to someone else.
His entire argument is that if you make changes to the source code, Red Hat support won't debug your modifications for you as part of their basic support package.
Yep, it's yet more FUD. Lets face it, if I install hardware without Windows Certified drivers and my computer becomes unstable, will Microsoft support fix it for me?
"Finally! Those fat cats in Canberra are taking some action to prepare for the immanant impending zombie pandemic."
= 0J4
They wouldn't have to look far for the source of the infection. Check this guy out;
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id
He's even got the voice down right...
Focus the linux open source community on one or two distros max, then i really believe everything else will fall into place.
I wish people would stop moderating this quackery as insightful. It's FUD and it's a trap.
The computer OS field has been a monopoly for so long, you people don't even recognise a free market when it's running on your computers. The FOSS environment has competition between distro makers driving improvements and users benefiting, just the way capitalism is supposed to work. Almost every distro has some innovation to distinguish it, and because the software is truly free, other distro makers are free to adopt those improvements, or learn from the failures.
Limiting the number of distros will drag the rate of innovation of free software down to the level of the monopoly OS. Lets face it, the reason there are so many Linux distros is because people want to make them, and they have the freedom to do so.
Name one other job where it's ok to be a whiny, needy little bitch.
President of the USA?
The GP post claimed to represent all of Slashdot. Anyone who would want to make such a claim is not only clearly a troll, but also seriously deranged.
why don't they just leave the maps thing alone - the market is saturated
Yeah, because now they'll just keep competing with each other, each trying to outdo the rest, In the end, the only people who'll benefit from that situation will be the bloody users.
That would suck, wouldn't it?
Name one problem an armed anarchist revolution would actually solve.
It would make me feel better.
Why does everything always have to be about you?
I'm a nudist you insensitive clod!
I just had lunch, you insensitive clod!
How is it 'creepy'?
Because large nombers of valid, interesting comments are being modded to oblivion because they don't support a particular vendor's product. The fact you don't see that as a bad thing speaks volumes for your own bias.
I'd label it as 'surprising', personally, as I'm used to seeing any pro-Microsoft/Windows posters somehow being modded as trolls
No, you're not used to that. You're saying it because it suits your purpose to pretend Microsoft is under attack here.
I must say that I have complete faith in them
Now that is just bizarre.