Copyright infringement devalues a product, and therefore it is stealing.
Right now, Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is in the millions. If it could be duplicated 100%, then the world would be filled with Mona Lisa paintings, and the value of the painting would become near zero.
Under SOPA, if you run a legitimate site, a site that does not violate copyright, you will have no problem.
Please stop with the hypocricy. The only reason you do not want SOPA is that you will no longer be able to download copyrighted material for no money.
I am serious, this is not a troll post. While SOPA is the result of the lobbying of Hollywood and othe media owners, it is about COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, not censorship.
Thousands of web sites have based their business model on copyright violation. This is the unfortunate truth. I am a regular youtube visitor, for example, and I am usually entertained by videos that are usually copyright-protected. I recognize though that these videos are illegally available by youtube, because they are copyrighted and the publisher has not reached an agreement with youtube regarding these videos.
People are also worried that sites where users post their comments, along with links will not be sustainable under SOPA. This is wrong. There are workarounds that can be used to circumvent the problem...for example, linking does not have to load the linked page directly...a link could be a downloaded text that ccntains the actual internet address to visit. Browsers could be automated to open these files and visit the addresses directly, without user intervention. In this way, a web page will not contain direct links to content, it will contain links to text which will contain the links to content, and thus the sites will not be restricted by SOPA.
That is, unless SOPA outlaws linking at 2 or more levels...in that case, the whole internet would be illegal.
They do not mix not because they cannot be mixed, but because you choose not to mix them. There is nothing wrong in applying the scientific method to religion, you just choose not to because religion will not pass the test, i.e. it will be revealed to be a fraud.
Indeed, brand recognition plays a big role. But if your product stinks, the recognition you have can easily be turned against you.
Take RIM, for example: once it was the boss in the business mobile space, now people are dumping away its devices like there is no tomorrow. Its worldwide famous brand was hurt tremendously by its subpar products and services.
Remember the iPhone antenna fiasco? if Apple continued to bring out flawed products, they would have to face a tsunami of negative comments. Their recognition would quickly be a disadvantage for them.
Let's not forget big media stars: their slightest misbehavior is transmitted instantly across the globe.
Being famous is good only if your products are good.
The short question and answer is "How can we make people want this?" The answer is unknown to me.
It is really simple: make a nice product that is easy to use from A to Z and is fancy enough to be considered cool.
Apple has these two factors well covered in its products: they are the easiest to use for the common person and they are aesthetically very nice, so people are not afraid to be seen using them.
Microsoft does not understand these two simple things though. Evidence to this is Windows 7: an interface that looks shiny but is difficult to use, and not polished enough in every use case to be considered cool. For example, windows on the Win desktop are super beautiful, but the explorer interface or control panel interface or networking interface is a complete confusing mess. And when an application crashes, you do not get a "sorry, this application crashed, because this and this happened", you get a "thingamagic stopped working, here are some CPU register values".
The fact is Microsoft never understood what a good UI is, what user-friendliness is, and how people tend to perceive others from the tools they use. And this reflects to every product they have made.
You simply have not tried to mix your knowledge into a single framework - you have one framework, physics, and another one, religion, completely separated in your mind. As long as you try to approach one with the methodology of the other, you will see that religion and science do not mix.
Existing programs will still break if they include some relevant header. For example, if a program uses 'noretun' as a variable, then the variable's name will be _Noreturn if the relevant header is included, and thus it will not compile.
It would be better if C adopted a form of namespaces; even a simple two-level namespace solution would do wonders.
Perhaps another good solution would be to split the content from the presentation: content posted by users should be uploaded in site A that does not have a DNS entry, and the presentation should come from another site B that has a DNS entry.
The content site would not be block-able, in this way, since it would not have a DNS entry.
The presentation site would be block-able, but if someone removes it from DNS, a new presentation site would become live very shortly, by grabbing a new domain name, and using the content site.
The solution is simple, really: separate sites into content and presentation. Have the presentation site have a DNS entry, and the content site to not have a DNS entry. Problem solved.
But the relative velocity of the rocket, relative to Earth, is zero at liftoff, so our velocity relative the solar system's plane is not a factor that affects the rocket.
The slingshot around other planets can also happen in a perpendicular direction relative to our plane.
Disclaimer: this is not a troll post, just my honest opinion.
I do not see what the big problem is about SOPA/PIPA.
They say it will 'break the internet'. How? I've read the article, I've read the letter from the Internet Engineers, and I saw nothing in it that will 'break the internet'. Anyone that makes a site that does not infringe on copyright will continue to have their site available to everyone.
Creating alternative DNS mechanisms will not break the existing DNS in any way. If people want to use alternative methods of reaching sites, then so be it. It's their responsibility after all, it's their choice.
I also do not see a problem with free speech. It's not that the creator of a site that will be banned will be forever silenced from any medium possible.
I also do not see any relation of the bills to the free flow of information and knowledge. If you make a site, and it does not contain any copyrighted material, or links to copyrighted material, then you are clear. It's not like in China or Iran that whole websites are closed down because of the ideas they are spreading. Under these acts, for example, you would still be able to create a site that speaks highly critical of USA or NATO, or one that supports OWS, or one that supports the Tea Party.
Frankly, I think the reactions of most internet users are due to the fact that they will be forbidden to download their favorite movies, music and video illegally for free. I will suffer from this too, but we all have to be sincere and say that what we did in the past was illegal.
Someone in a post in this discussion said the following: "For the past few years, the RIAA and MPAA have been working hard to undermine and destroy peer-to-peer networking on the Internet, because it does not fit into the distribution model they are comfortable with." Excuse me, how can you dictate to a business what method of distribution they will follow? it's not your product that is being distributed, it's their product. They have the right to distribute their product as they see fit. You are not obliged, by any means, to consume their output. The only reason the above quote was said is because people want to not pay for the things they download.
Another poster, in another Slashdot thread, said "no more GeneralGrin's TNG recuts" (GeneralGrin is a youtube user that makes funny TNG recuts). So? since when recutting a major TV franchise was legal? I was entertained tremendously by GeneralGrin's videos, but he doesn't have a permit from Paramount, does he? and Paramount was not paid a single penny out of GeneralGrin's videos, which was a derivative work of Paramount, while Google was paid serious money (in the form of investments and from ads) from this effort.
It is a myth that we have the greatest debt. Other countries have way more debt than us.
Greece is the first western country and the first EU country to be attacked by the markets because it is the weakest link in the debt depentency chain. By attacking Greece, the markets will be easily able to attack the big fish next.
At the year 2099, after the 3rd world war, and a huge asteroid impact, mankind decides to visit the most promising solar system bodies for sustaining life, in order to evaluate them for colonization.
Make a big space station/ship, complete with rotating sections for artificial gravity, that uses nuclear propulsion to accelerate to relativistic speeds.
The ship would have lots of people, from every kind of profession. It would also have science labs, entertainment and sport centers, even prostitutes (do not forget the sex part, if you want to make it as realistic as possible).
Provide the ship with landers, so as that people can land on smaller objects.
Also let the ship generate an electromagnetic field around it, just like Earth, so as that it is protected from radiation.
Use slingshots around planets (or even the Sun) to propel the ship (together with nuclear propulsion), in order to be even more realistic.
Assemble the ship in orbit (unlike a recent scifi movie).
Describe, to your best ability, the air and water systems of the ship, as well as anything else required to have a functioning living space. For example, deal with the problem of garbage.
The spaceship would have enough supplies for a 5 year mission, and it will finally return to Earth. Forget the stuff about the one way missions, it is bullshit. Mankind needs hope, not darkness or desperation.
Describe the true emptiness of space and use real distances and planetary positions.
Would Microsoft have all the profits they had if Windows was open source? they would not. They would have some profits from selling services, but they would be much smaller than what they are now.
The standard of living is quite high in Greece. Is not on par with the standard of living in Scandinavia, or Switzerland, or France, for example, but it is very close.
Greek people do not use the Internet as much as the other countries because it is not developed much in Greece. Part of the problem is the Government: it is one of the most bureaucratic organizations on Earth, requiring detailed written forms to handle everything. If paper is required, then people are not encouraged to use the Internet for their transactions.
The current economic crisis has slowed down the development of Internet in Greece, but it will start again in a few years when the economic problems are resolved.
Menus are also fixed, just like tabs. But there are also toolbars, which are not hidden, unlike menus or Ribbon tabs.
The number of clicks is important because they slow down the process of writing a document. I speak from personal experience. I have timed several document sequences of my own, and I always find using the Ribbon makes the sequences longer to execute. Not only I have to do more clicks, I have to move the mouse more.
Well, if the goal of the Ribbon was to expose a bigger amount of available commands, then toolbars was a better solution, because toolbars allow for bigger visibility of commands than the Ribbon.
I do not think there were any unfindable functionalities in Office. And even if there were some, I don't see how the Ribbon helps, since functions are hidden behind tabs. If they wanted the users to find commands, then they should have invested in organizing toolbars in a better way.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you create the folders externally from Qt Creator? because it does not let you create folders.
Come on now, Persians attacked Greece 3000 years ago. They could do it again, you know.
[/sarcasm]
The last time I tried it, you could not organize your code into folders. Everything had to be saved in one directory, that of the project files.
When people were creating stuff and there was no copyright, they either had another profession or where sponsored by kings or leaders.
In addition, creation at that time was a solo process, mostly.
Nowdays, many hundreds of people work full time on each video games and movie. If they lose that income due to piracy, they would be unemployed.
What was taken was VALUE. Copyright infringement devalues a product.
Copyright infringement devalues a product, and therefore it is stealing.
Right now, Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is in the millions. If it could be duplicated 100%, then the world would be filled with Mona Lisa paintings, and the value of the painting would become near zero.
SOPA will not result in censorship.
SOPA will not hurt the economy.
Under SOPA, if you run a legitimate site, a site that does not violate copyright, you will have no problem.
Please stop with the hypocricy. The only reason you do not want SOPA is that you will no longer be able to download copyrighted material for no money.
I am serious, this is not a troll post. While SOPA is the result of the lobbying of Hollywood and othe media owners, it is about COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, not censorship.
Thousands of web sites have based their business model on copyright violation. This is the unfortunate truth. I am a regular youtube visitor, for example, and I am usually entertained by videos that are usually copyright-protected. I recognize though that these videos are illegally available by youtube, because they are copyrighted and the publisher has not reached an agreement with youtube regarding these videos.
People are also worried that sites where users post their comments, along with links will not be sustainable under SOPA. This is wrong. There are workarounds that can be used to circumvent the problem...for example, linking does not have to load the linked page directly...a link could be a downloaded text that ccntains the actual internet address to visit. Browsers could be automated to open these files and visit the addresses directly, without user intervention. In this way, a web page will not contain direct links to content, it will contain links to text which will contain the links to content, and thus the sites will not be restricted by SOPA.
That is, unless SOPA outlaws linking at 2 or more levels...in that case, the whole internet would be illegal.
They do not mix not because they cannot be mixed, but because you choose not to mix them. There is nothing wrong in applying the scientific method to religion, you just choose not to because religion will not pass the test, i.e. it will be revealed to be a fraud.
Indeed, brand recognition plays a big role. But if your product stinks, the recognition you have can easily be turned against you.
Take RIM, for example: once it was the boss in the business mobile space, now people are dumping away its devices like there is no tomorrow. Its worldwide famous brand was hurt tremendously by its subpar products and services.
Remember the iPhone antenna fiasco? if Apple continued to bring out flawed products, they would have to face a tsunami of negative comments. Their recognition would quickly be a disadvantage for them.
Let's not forget big media stars: their slightest misbehavior is transmitted instantly across the globe.
Being famous is good only if your products are good.
It means as much to me as it did to Star Trek writers...i.e. nothing.
But a header you need might include a header you don't want. Like including windows.h defines the macros min and max, for example.
The short question and answer is "How can we make people want this?" The answer is unknown to me.
It is really simple: make a nice product that is easy to use from A to Z and is fancy enough to be considered cool.
Apple has these two factors well covered in its products: they are the easiest to use for the common person and they are aesthetically very nice, so people are not afraid to be seen using them.
Microsoft does not understand these two simple things though. Evidence to this is Windows 7: an interface that looks shiny but is difficult to use, and not polished enough in every use case to be considered cool. For example, windows on the Win desktop are super beautiful, but the explorer interface or control panel interface or networking interface is a complete confusing mess. And when an application crashes, you do not get a "sorry, this application crashed, because this and this happened", you get a "thingamagic stopped working, here are some CPU register values".
The fact is Microsoft never understood what a good UI is, what user-friendliness is, and how people tend to perceive others from the tools they use. And this reflects to every product they have made.
You simply have not tried to mix your knowledge into a single framework - you have one framework, physics, and another one, religion, completely separated in your mind. As long as you try to approach one with the methodology of the other, you will see that religion and science do not mix.
The Enterprise travels back in time, assists Babbage in finishing his analytical engine, and mankind gets warp drive 150 years before Cochrane did.
In the mean time, Hitler fails to capture power in Germany, thanks to the internet.
Stalin fails to rise to power, because people are quickly informed via their phones about his actions.
etc
Existing programs will still break if they include some relevant header. For example, if a program uses 'noretun' as a variable, then the variable's name will be _Noreturn if the relevant header is included, and thus it will not compile.
It would be better if C adopted a form of namespaces; even a simple two-level namespace solution would do wonders.
If c++ dies, there would be no language that is so compatible with C that it can include its headers and also offer so high level features.
Perhaps another good solution would be to split the content from the presentation: content posted by users should be uploaded in site A that does not have a DNS entry, and the presentation should come from another site B that has a DNS entry.
The content site would not be block-able, in this way, since it would not have a DNS entry.
The presentation site would be block-able, but if someone removes it from DNS, a new presentation site would become live very shortly, by grabbing a new domain name, and using the content site.
The solution is simple, really: separate sites into content and presentation. Have the presentation site have a DNS entry, and the content site to not have a DNS entry. Problem solved.
But the relative velocity of the rocket, relative to Earth, is zero at liftoff, so our velocity relative the solar system's plane is not a factor that affects the rocket.
The slingshot around other planets can also happen in a perpendicular direction relative to our plane.
Disclaimer: this is not a troll post, just my honest opinion.
I do not see what the big problem is about SOPA/PIPA.
They say it will 'break the internet'. How? I've read the article, I've read the letter from the Internet Engineers, and I saw nothing in it that will 'break the internet'. Anyone that makes a site that does not infringe on copyright will continue to have their site available to everyone.
Creating alternative DNS mechanisms will not break the existing DNS in any way. If people want to use alternative methods of reaching sites, then so be it. It's their responsibility after all, it's their choice.
I also do not see a problem with free speech. It's not that the creator of a site that will be banned will be forever silenced from any medium possible.
I also do not see any relation of the bills to the free flow of information and knowledge. If you make a site, and it does not contain any copyrighted material, or links to copyrighted material, then you are clear. It's not like in China or Iran that whole websites are closed down because of the ideas they are spreading. Under these acts, for example, you would still be able to create a site that speaks highly critical of USA or NATO, or one that supports OWS, or one that supports the Tea Party.
Frankly, I think the reactions of most internet users are due to the fact that they will be forbidden to download their favorite movies, music and video illegally for free. I will suffer from this too, but we all have to be sincere and say that what we did in the past was illegal.
Someone in a post in this discussion said the following: "For the past few years, the RIAA and MPAA have been working hard to undermine and destroy peer-to-peer networking on the Internet, because it does not fit into the distribution model they are comfortable with." Excuse me, how can you dictate to a business what method of distribution they will follow? it's not your product that is being distributed, it's their product. They have the right to distribute their product as they see fit. You are not obliged, by any means, to consume their output. The only reason the above quote was said is because people want to not pay for the things they download.
Another poster, in another Slashdot thread, said "no more GeneralGrin's TNG recuts" (GeneralGrin is a youtube user that makes funny TNG recuts). So? since when recutting a major TV franchise was legal? I was entertained tremendously by GeneralGrin's videos, but he doesn't have a permit from Paramount, does he? and Paramount was not paid a single penny out of GeneralGrin's videos, which was a derivative work of Paramount, while Google was paid serious money (in the form of investments and from ads) from this effort.
It is a myth that we retire at an early age.
It is a myth that we are not productive.
It is a myth that we have the greatest debt. Other countries have way more debt than us.
Greece is the first western country and the first EU country to be attacked by the markets because it is the weakest link in the debt depentency chain. By attacking Greece, the markets will be easily able to attack the big fish next.
At the year 2099, after the 3rd world war, and a huge asteroid impact, mankind decides to visit the most promising solar system bodies for sustaining life, in order to evaluate them for colonization.
Make a big space station/ship, complete with rotating sections for artificial gravity, that uses nuclear propulsion to accelerate to relativistic speeds.
The ship would have lots of people, from every kind of profession. It would also have science labs, entertainment and sport centers, even prostitutes (do not forget the sex part, if you want to make it as realistic as possible).
Provide the ship with landers, so as that people can land on smaller objects.
Also let the ship generate an electromagnetic field around it, just like Earth, so as that it is protected from radiation.
Use slingshots around planets (or even the Sun) to propel the ship (together with nuclear propulsion), in order to be even more realistic.
Assemble the ship in orbit (unlike a recent scifi movie).
Describe, to your best ability, the air and water systems of the ship, as well as anything else required to have a functioning living space. For example, deal with the problem of garbage.
The spaceship would have enough supplies for a 5 year mission, and it will finally return to Earth. Forget the stuff about the one way missions, it is bullshit. Mankind needs hope, not darkness or desperation.
Describe the true emptiness of space and use real distances and planetary positions.
But without the dependency, there is no profit.
Would Microsoft have all the profits they had if Windows was open source? they would not. They would have some profits from selling services, but they would be much smaller than what they are now.
(Greek here).
Actually, it is not true.
The standard of living is quite high in Greece. Is not on par with the standard of living in Scandinavia, or Switzerland, or France, for example, but it is very close.
Greek people do not use the Internet as much as the other countries because it is not developed much in Greece. Part of the problem is the Government: it is one of the most bureaucratic organizations on Earth, requiring detailed written forms to handle everything. If paper is required, then people are not encouraged to use the Internet for their transactions.
The current economic crisis has slowed down the development of Internet in Greece, but it will start again in a few years when the economic problems are resolved.
Menus are also fixed, just like tabs. But there are also toolbars, which are not hidden, unlike menus or Ribbon tabs.
The number of clicks is important because they slow down the process of writing a document. I speak from personal experience. I have timed several document sequences of my own, and I always find using the Ribbon makes the sequences longer to execute. Not only I have to do more clicks, I have to move the mouse more.
Well, if the goal of the Ribbon was to expose a bigger amount of available commands, then toolbars was a better solution, because toolbars allow for bigger visibility of commands than the Ribbon.
I do not think there were any unfindable functionalities in Office. And even if there were some, I don't see how the Ribbon helps, since functions are hidden behind tabs. If they wanted the users to find commands, then they should have invested in organizing toolbars in a better way.