People will pirate every game, that's for sure. But in the end of the day, what matters is how many will find some justification to buy it. And being less of an ass to your clients will make it easier for them to justify giving you money.
You know, if you are asking for money, instead of requiring payment, the solution for that problem is as simple as non-intuitive. The software developer just needs to ask for bigger amounts. That way few people will pay him more, and the donors will have an easier decision to make ("do I give $10 to this team?" 5 times, instead of "do I give $1 to this team?" 50 times).
Now, of course, when requiring payment a completely different logic applies. And what WinZip did (is it still there?) was requiring payment, even if the downside to not paying is just some annoyance.
Air France 441 - While the pilots could technicaly make the plane not fall, they had absolutely no information available telling them WTF was happening, so they choosed wrong. Mainly attributed to crew mistake. Keep in mind that the mistake wouldn't have happened if the windspeed sensor actualy worked, if the crew was not pressed into following a known dangerous path, if the designers of the automatic pilot tought about the ergonomics of the emergency system used, and a ton of other factors.
TAM 3054 - There was little chance of either the pilot or the co-pilot discovering what was wrong on the plane even if you gave them several minutes to test things, but they only had a few seconds. Mainly attributed to crew mistake, their mistake was not noticing that a control was stuck a few millimeters before it should be. Again, that mistake wouldn't have happened if there weren't mechanical and ergonomical flaws on the plane, if the airline did follow other maintance procedures, etc. If they were landing in an airport with a bigger runway they could put the plane on air again, but not there.
Well, out of my mind, that's all, for any other example I'd have to research. Hope that's enough. Keep in mind that in both cases there the crew did make a mistake, but attributing the accident on it is a bit too much.
1 - Compare file sizes 2 - When a set of files have the same size you seed that size into a pseudo-random number generator and gather the first 3 numbers it generates that are within the size. You hash those blocks and refine your set. 3 - After step 2 gave you a set of matching files, refine hashing the entire files 4 - The sets that step 3 gave you are duplicated. Now comes the hardest step, dedup them. I can't tell you how, since everybody wants something different here.
I don't know of any tool that does that. Last time I needed it, I used a bounch of perl scripts.
It seems to me that either ships and airplanes would be easier to automate than cars. But the incentive to automate both is much smaller, since the cost of keeping a crew is relatively smaller, and neither has stopped time due to the human pilots.
Automated trucks are the way to go, but better test it on cars first.
If there is something that airplanes teaches us it is that passing control to a bored human in a dangerous situation is not the way to go. It is safer to keep either the computer or the human in control all the time.
Most airline accidents that aren't due to terrorism or mechanical malfunction are due to pilots overriding the autopilots.
Now, where are you getting those statistics from? Mechanical malfunction is constantly causing airline accidents, and is often one of the causes of the accidents attributed to human error.
In fact, everybody seems to be fast attributing airline accidents to human errors nowadays, even when there are little the crew could do to save the plane. The reality is a bit more complex, since there are several safeguards preventing a problem in a plane, when an accident happens it is because all those safeguards failed. Even the act of attributing the accident to a single thing is already a lie, but the press and several governamental bodies (often in the Judiciary) will make damn sure that somebody creates that lie to them, so they can act upon it.
It is not that FOSS developers hate ABI compatibility. It is that the value of such compatibility for important projects (FOSS ones) is very near zero, thus why should they have extra work to achieve it?
Yeah, there is a bias here. Linux developers don't think closed source drivers are important. If you think they are wrong, the burden is on you to convince them.
About TFA, well, I've not read it yet, but if that is its best argument, it just doesn't fly. The lack of ABI compatibility only impacts drivers developers, and hardware selection. Linux runs on nearly everything you can find people selling, lack of hardware selection* is not the problem stopping its adoption.
* Except, of course, for GPUs. But those do use binary drivers, so the argument is moot. Oh, and if you take a look at the quality of the binary drivers available for them you'll see why Linux developers aren't looking for more proprietary Linux drivers.
Well, ok, white, beige, silver and black. Not colorfull if you ask me. If there isn't any other, I can't find on the net (because on stores I can only find the black and siver ones).
In the pictures there are green, blue, yellow, and red phones.
Yes, but those phones are all rectangles with rounded corners. As I bet they also have colored icons displayed on a grid, the phone icon has a phone in it, and the message icon has an envelope, the only distinctive factor lasting is the black color, that seems to be optional. If those are the new Lumina models, Apple won't be able to claim that anymore.
Now, I liked the color options. It is already time to somebody get out from black and silver. (But no, it comes with Windows, so I won't have one.)
Do we even know anything for sure? As far as I know, people ruled out anything bigger than a very small size, but saying that it has no size is a big jump from there.
Robots are already responsible for a good part of the work on building other robots (they are responsible for a good part of the work on building anything). And they are gaining terrain fast.
There are quite a number of people out there that would sooner die then choose Apple because of their shiny retarded walled garden approach to computing.
In fact, I know quite a few people that won't choose Apple because of their walled garden, but don't even know what that is, or that the iStuff have one.
People just try both phones, and one you can configure, add all kinds of different things, and have a lot of similar apps to choose from, in the other you just can't, can't and don't. People don't need even knowledge of IT or business practices to notice that.
Now that I've tought about it, that's how Apple lost in the PC too.
No. No judge in the US, or the EU, or anywhere else is concerned about the national budget. It is not their job, it is not their boss' job, or the job of anybody they've ever met.
Saying that judiciary decisions are made because of the budget only shows that you have no idea how a government operates. And that you are a troll.
Any Linux distribution will boot in less than 30 seconds if you turn off all the services you don't need... will have packages for aufs ready to install... will tell you, via D-Bus, when a removable disk is plugged...
You know, I was on the "it doesn't matter" camp untill I readed your post. Now I just changed my mind.
Yes, any distro will do it. You'll have the same (lack of) trouble configuring the service on any distro. So, choose a distro that is easy to get into bare bones and to upgrade, because those are the two main differentiators here.
I sugest Slackware. Probably somebody else knows about somethig simpler, but not so simple that it will end up giving you more work.
A reputation-based security measure that is opt-in can't be very effective.
If you can't do a reputation-based security measure that is acceptable, don't do it. If you do unnacceptable things on your software, be prepared to the backslash you'll suffer. That "feature" will enter the set of problems I'll give for people to not get a new Windows (I don't know the size of this set yet).
That said, it is perfectly possible to create an effective reputation based security software that is opt-in. You are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
That "casual maintenance" is also a give away. We are looking at a Linux admin that learned his truf by administrating Windows.
Well, there is indeed no problem with that. Welcome to the club, GP.
Nobody uses the start button, thus you aren't looking at it either. Why are you asking where something is if you don't even remember it exists?
People will pirate every game, that's for sure. But in the end of the day, what matters is how many will find some justification to buy it. And being less of an ass to your clients will make it easier for them to justify giving you money.
You know, if you are asking for money, instead of requiring payment, the solution for that problem is as simple as non-intuitive. The software developer just needs to ask for bigger amounts. That way few people will pay him more, and the donors will have an easier decision to make ("do I give $10 to this team?" 5 times, instead of "do I give $1 to this team?" 50 times).
Now, of course, when requiring payment a completely different logic applies. And what WinZip did (is it still there?) was requiring payment, even if the downside to not paying is just some annoyance.
You know that when you enter a plane, all that people that receive you at its door is working there, right?
Air France 441 - While the pilots could technicaly make the plane not fall, they had absolutely no information available telling them WTF was happening, so they choosed wrong. Mainly attributed to crew mistake. Keep in mind that the mistake wouldn't have happened if the windspeed sensor actualy worked, if the crew was not pressed into following a known dangerous path, if the designers of the automatic pilot tought about the ergonomics of the emergency system used, and a ton of other factors.
TAM 3054 - There was little chance of either the pilot or the co-pilot discovering what was wrong on the plane even if you gave them several minutes to test things, but they only had a few seconds. Mainly attributed to crew mistake, their mistake was not noticing that a control was stuck a few millimeters before it should be. Again, that mistake wouldn't have happened if there weren't mechanical and ergonomical flaws on the plane, if the airline did follow other maintance procedures, etc. If they were landing in an airport with a bigger runway they could put the plane on air again, but not there.
Well, out of my mind, that's all, for any other example I'd have to research. Hope that's enough. Keep in mind that in both cases there the crew did make a mistake, but attributing the accident on it is a bit too much.
Now, that's a great list.
Between all the flamebaits, it is easy to forget that there are people out there interested in actual issues.
Better this way:
1 - Compare file sizes
2 - When a set of files have the same size you seed that size into a pseudo-random number generator and gather the first 3 numbers it generates that are within the size. You hash those blocks and refine your set.
3 - After step 2 gave you a set of matching files, refine hashing the entire files
4 - The sets that step 3 gave you are duplicated. Now comes the hardest step, dedup them. I can't tell you how, since everybody wants something different here.
I don't know of any tool that does that. Last time I needed it, I used a bounch of perl scripts.
It seems to me that either ships and airplanes would be easier to automate than cars. But the incentive to automate both is much smaller, since the cost of keeping a crew is relatively smaller, and neither has stopped time due to the human pilots.
Automated trucks are the way to go, but better test it on cars first.
If there is something that airplanes teaches us it is that passing control to a bored human in a dangerous situation is not the way to go. It is safer to keep either the computer or the human in control all the time.
Now, where are you getting those statistics from? Mechanical malfunction is constantly causing airline accidents, and is often one of the causes of the accidents attributed to human error.
In fact, everybody seems to be fast attributing airline accidents to human errors nowadays, even when there are little the crew could do to save the plane. The reality is a bit more complex, since there are several safeguards preventing a problem in a plane, when an accident happens it is because all those safeguards failed. Even the act of attributing the accident to a single thing is already a lie, but the press and several governamental bodies (often in the Judiciary) will make damn sure that somebody creates that lie to them, so they can act upon it.
Are you sure you are talking about ABI compatibility, or are you confusing some other concept with it?
RedHat is neither more nor less self compatible than any other distro that uses linux and glibc.
Yep, now that I've RTFA, it agrees with me.
It is not that FOSS developers hate ABI compatibility. It is that the value of such compatibility for important projects (FOSS ones) is very near zero, thus why should they have extra work to achieve it?
Yeah, there is a bias here. Linux developers don't think closed source drivers are important. If you think they are wrong, the burden is on you to convince them.
About TFA, well, I've not read it yet, but if that is its best argument, it just doesn't fly. The lack of ABI compatibility only impacts drivers developers, and hardware selection. Linux runs on nearly everything you can find people selling, lack of hardware selection* is not the problem stopping its adoption.
* Except, of course, for GPUs. But those do use binary drivers, so the argument is moot. Oh, and if you take a look at the quality of the binary drivers available for them you'll see why Linux developers aren't looking for more proprietary Linux drivers.
Indeed, it may be the IP. I'm not at the US.
Well, ok, white, beige, silver and black. Not colorfull if you ask me. If there isn't any other, I can't find on the net (because on stores I can only find the black and siver ones).
In the pictures there are green, blue, yellow, and red phones.
Yes, but those phones are all rectangles with rounded corners. As I bet they also have colored icons displayed on a grid, the phone icon has a phone in it, and the message icon has an envelope, the only distinctive factor lasting is the black color, that seems to be optional. If those are the new Lumina models, Apple won't be able to claim that anymore.
Now, I liked the color options. It is already time to somebody get out from black and silver. (But no, it comes with Windows, so I won't have one.)
Do you have Adblock or NoScript?
I didn't see the pool either, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Do we even know anything for sure? As far as I know, people ruled out anything bigger than a very small size, but saying that it has no size is a big jump from there.
Robots are already responsible for a good part of the work on building other robots (they are responsible for a good part of the work on building anything). And they are gaining terrain fast.
In fact, I know quite a few people that won't choose Apple because of their walled garden, but don't even know what that is, or that the iStuff have one.
People just try both phones, and one you can configure, add all kinds of different things, and have a lot of similar apps to choose from, in the other you just can't, can't and don't. People don't need even knowledge of IT or business practices to notice that.
Now that I've tought about it, that's how Apple lost in the PC too.
No. No judge in the US, or the EU, or anywhere else is concerned about the national budget. It is not their job, it is not their boss' job, or the job of anybody they've ever met.
Saying that judiciary decisions are made because of the budget only shows that you have no idea how a government operates. And that you are a troll.
You know, I was on the "it doesn't matter" camp untill I readed your post. Now I just changed my mind.
Yes, any distro will do it. You'll have the same (lack of) trouble configuring the service on any distro. So, choose a distro that is easy to get into bare bones and to upgrade, because those are the two main differentiators here.
I sugest Slackware. Probably somebody else knows about somethig simpler, but not so simple that it will end up giving you more work.
You don't need to tell MS everything you have on your computer to run an anti-virus.
If you can't do a reputation-based security measure that is acceptable, don't do it. If you do unnacceptable things on your software, be prepared to the backslash you'll suffer. That "feature" will enter the set of problems I'll give for people to not get a new Windows (I don't know the size of this set yet).
That said, it is perfectly possible to create an effective reputation based security software that is opt-in. You are wrong.