Your skipping some of what the GoneME guy said though, whether he can pull it off or not isn't the point. This might explain why his patches aren't being accepted.
Basically he has said he wants to get rid of the join projects between gnome and kde, he wants to see them go back in seperate directions instead of interoperability and compatibility. This goes hand and hand with his idea of getting rid of freedesktop.org. He doesn't propose an alternative, in fact he implies there shouldn't be one.
He also wants to see the usability work that HAS been done abolished, the human interface guidlines, for one thing. Again, he doesn't want them replaced with guidelines, he wants to get rid of them altogether.
This somehow got touted as someone who wanted to improve usability, but it's not. It's someone who doesn't like usability improvements and wants to see gnome go back to the way it used to be.
All of the patches he proposing working on are to REMOVE usability features that have been added to gnome.
If anything I see this case as proof that we DON'T need to update the laws.
Reckless and careless driving are ALREADY illegal in every state.
This is where we get into trouble, lawmakers have these crazy ideas that they must be constantly making new laws.
Honestly I can't think of ANY new laws that are needed, we don't need new rules, additional restrictions, additional things which require licenses.
In fact there are quite a few things we need to abolish. DMCA, fishing licenses, gun restrictions, FOID cards, pretty much ALL spam/internet legislation that has been passed, pretty well all the government contract legislation needs either abolished or reformed in a manner that reduces restrictions and complexity.
Although we have certain guaranteed freedoms (I'll pretend there haven't been so many instances where they've been ignored, disregarded, or somehow overturned despite the fact that no branch of state, local, or federal government is supposed to have the authority to overrule them), what we don't have anymore is day to day freedom.
The average man, who is doing nothing wrong and living his life should have as few controls, restraints, and tracking as humanly possible. Instead he must register, submit, fill out paperwork, file for a SS#, submit to tracking via that number, maintain an updated legal address, etc.
If a man wishes to have money in the bank, the government wants to know about it, and more they want to know how much and if too much they want to know where it came from. I say, bust me for drugs and then you can investigate my bank accounts, otherwise, leave me the hell alone!
In short, new laws and additional restrictions are bad. Especially when the only purpose they serve is to tack on another charge to give the states attorney a better hand when plea bargaining.
Absolutely, this is how the whole DMCA catastophy was excused.
By claiming new laws were needed to cover things that were already against the law. The result is that no legitimate copyright violation is now illegal that wasn't before and many legitimate uses are now illegal.
I can see why they'd offer XP pro on the thing, but I fail to see why they wouldn't offer linux on it as well.
Sony prices are overinflated enough, without the $150 XP Pro OEM license tacked on. Especially when you consider you can't sell it to someone else or even run it on another pc (just like any other OEM windows license).
I suppose everyone has their classic favorites, something they cuddled up to in the beginning.
I actually had and used several of the old "classics" I hear about, and none compared with C64/128. Those things were hackable in ways never before dreamed of... kind of like the Amiga, which I would now call vintage if there weren't people still selling the things for a few thousand.
Alive and well
on
BSD Hacks
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It's good to see BSD getting some well deserved recognition.
Although BSD isn't commonly seen as an end platform in practice (with some notable exceptions), the code and technology in it are probably used in favorite OS no matter what OS that is.
So for once guys, be you linux fans, windows fans, or OS X fans, tip your hats. We should all be encouraging the growth and development of BSD.
"Being widespread doesn't make right. There is a widespread use of "your" in place of "you're" and "axe" in place of "ask." Neither of these usages is correct, but they have widespread acceptance"
Language is defined by common usage. What has widespread acceptance today, will inevitably make it's way into the textbooks and oxford dictionary.
You see, it's people and perception and usage that define these things. Text books are merely an outdated attempt to reflect that usage.
I agree with you about kilo (although here in the US the only things we measure in kilos are cocaine and heroine).
However I think a better solution is to make the k in kilobyte stand for something else and continue to use the standard abbreviations. Again still forcing the marketing guys to use the *iB units.
And 90% of RPGers play on pc's not consoles. Probably because all the RPG's are on the PC. There is a reason DAOC alone typically has over 100,000 players (between the servers) on at a given moment.
Also aside from the occasional expansion, MMORPGers are paying monthly fees, not buying boxsets.
Why pay $700 for this remote? It doesn't sound like it actually DOES anything a programmable lcd remote had for $150 can't do.
Don't get me wrong, embedded linux is always good. But this is just another example of Sony ridiculously overcharging for their products... like they always do.
How is that different than any other touchscreen remote you pick up for $150 or less?
Afaik there is nothing special about how this control things, any universal remote can do it, you just don't have suitable buttons and with a programmable touchscreen universal of any kind you eliminate the button problem...
Drinky, your still not fully corrected. While those notations do exist, they serve little purpose and aren't likely to ever be widely adopted.
I can write a new notation on a napkin or a webpage, that doesn't make it correct. Only widespread acceptance can do that. And outside of a few engaging in debates regarding the subject on slashdot, nobody has accepted it.
Personally I might be more inclined it they reversed the standard *B's and *iB's. Since the correct value for *B's was always powers of 2, the marketing guys should be the ones forced to move to *iB.
Do that and I'll accept the change... since it's the tech industry that has to adopt it to make it stick, not the marketing industry, they need to cater to making US not have to change anything.
If they do it that way, we change nothing we do, and completely ignore the rest of the notation (since there is no use for any of it outside marketing) and carry on blissfully wife our lives.
It is insightful, well perhaps not insightful, since there are no shortage of people with insight enough to see that rather than dumping a media outlet that is supposed to be unbiased. They should be dropping IE.
I still have to be anal about it, today people start saying "use" meaning thos aspects of it which copyright allows control over.
In a couple years the distinction is lost and it becomes common knowledge copyright is meant to allow control over the "use". Next thing you know laws start being made and interpreted to that effect.
Seeing myself say that would make me laugh if this weren't already happening with copyright law:(
"Sure, a top-of-the-line G5 costs $3000, but so does a top-of-the-line PC"
No a top of the line pc costs more like $800-$1200. 5-6yrs ago it would have cost $3000.
"The 12" iBook (which is what I have) is $1099 brand new; less if you get the previous model (the 800MHz one) which is still available in retail stores."
I rest my case? Equivelent pc, $600
"As for desktops, an eMac is $799 new."
I don't even think it's fair to begin comparing a fully integrated eMac to a fully modular PC do you? In terms of performance and flexibility you have to compare Power Macs.
Copyright law granted the holder control over distribution and some forms of copying. It does NOT grant any control over how the material is used beyond copying and distributing!
The gpl works entirely within copyright law, you don't have to agree to it to use the software because you don't need someone to GIVE you RIGHTS YOU ALREADY HAVE. The only reason you EVER don't have the right to use a copyrighted work is if you obtained it illegally.
This is why most copyrighted works aren't licensed at all, books, cd's, etc.
Not according to the law. A license is a grant to someone to use copywrited material. There is more than enough case law on the differences that I won't go into detail here, google it."
Not quite right. A license is a grant to distribute or copy copyrighted material. You do not need a license to USE copyrighted material. Copyright law grants NO control over the USE of a copyrighted work. It's not like the holder of a copyright OWNS the work, the public owns it (if anyone, since it's an idea and idea can't actually be owned or even unique), he just has the rights the public gave him in the copyright.
The GPL has no restrictions on use because the GPL doesn't rely on contract law, only copyright law. As I've already said, copyright includes no provisions for controling how material is used.
Commercial licenses on the other hand obviously do put restrictions on use. As such they depend on contract law for validity.
There are number of grounds under which they are of questionable legality because of this. First, the contract is asking you to give up some of your rights, and in exchange they'll give you some rights you already have in return (although there is always SOMETHING in there you don't already have to get around this).
Second it's questionable whether you've legally entered into the contract. Click through EULA's have not been tested in a high court as a legally binding contract. So you might still have all your rights.
"Why is that different to the GPL? They're both licences that apply to the use of software. Without a license, you can't legally use any non-public domain software. The GPL is one such license, this is another."
WRONG. The GPL does not apply to use, only to distribution and copying. Copyright law does NOT grant authority to control how material is USED. Licenses which put restrictions on use are relying on CONTRACT law to do so.
The difference (aside from which law to look at) is that you have to knowingly commit to a contract, by default you have the rights which the contract seeks to void, and EULA's restricting use only offer you rights you already have in return for those you give up. It's also questionable whether a click-through EULA or worse, one which is just tossed in the package are contracts which you've ever actually agreed to.
The GPL on the other hand works entirely within copyright law and doesn't rely on contract law. It puts no restrictions on use whatsoever because copyright law doesn't give it a right to. Instead it specifies terms under which you can distribute the software... without that agreement you have no right to do so. Without any license you have the right to USE the software.
If you have possession of copyrighted material, and it wasn't obtained illegally. You don't need a license to use it, further whoever holds the copyright has no legal right to restrict your use.
Pirated or stolen material is something altogether different, you never have a right to stolen material.
Slashdot Mirror
Your skipping some of what the GoneME guy said though, whether he can pull it off or not isn't the point. This might explain why his patches aren't being accepted.
Basically he has said he wants to get rid of the join projects between gnome and kde, he wants to see them go back in seperate directions instead of interoperability and compatibility. This goes hand and hand with his idea of getting rid of freedesktop.org. He doesn't propose an alternative, in fact he implies there shouldn't be one.
He also wants to see the usability work that HAS been done abolished, the human interface guidlines, for one thing. Again, he doesn't want them replaced with guidelines, he wants to get rid of them altogether.
This somehow got touted as someone who wanted to improve usability, but it's not. It's someone who doesn't like usability improvements and wants to see gnome go back to the way it used to be.
All of the patches he proposing working on are to REMOVE usability features that have been added to gnome.
If anything I see this case as proof that we DON'T need to update the laws.
Reckless and careless driving are ALREADY illegal in every state.
This is where we get into trouble, lawmakers have these crazy ideas that they must be constantly making new laws.
Honestly I can't think of ANY new laws that are needed, we don't need new rules, additional restrictions, additional things which require licenses.
In fact there are quite a few things we need to abolish. DMCA, fishing licenses, gun restrictions, FOID cards, pretty much ALL spam/internet legislation that has been passed, pretty well all the government contract legislation needs either abolished or reformed in a manner that reduces restrictions and complexity.
Although we have certain guaranteed freedoms (I'll pretend there haven't been so many instances where they've been ignored, disregarded, or somehow overturned despite the fact that no branch of state, local, or federal government is supposed to have the authority to overrule them), what we don't have anymore is day to day freedom.
The average man, who is doing nothing wrong and living his life should have as few controls, restraints, and tracking as humanly possible. Instead he must register, submit, fill out paperwork, file for a SS#, submit to tracking via that number, maintain an updated legal address, etc.
If a man wishes to have money in the bank, the government wants to know about it, and more they want to know how much and if too much they want to know where it came from. I say, bust me for drugs and then you can investigate my bank accounts, otherwise, leave me the hell alone!
In short, new laws and additional restrictions are bad. Especially when the only purpose they serve is to tack on another charge to give the states attorney a better hand when plea bargaining.
Absolutely, this is how the whole DMCA catastophy was excused.
By claiming new laws were needed to cover things that were already against the law. The result is that no legitimate copyright violation is now illegal that wasn't before and many legitimate uses are now illegal.
ok ok I give, actual BSD fans can encourage the growth and development of BSD too... I suppose.
I would have thought we'd see a link to actual survey instead of a story about the story about the survey ;)
Here is the results page
Here is the start of the survey story
I can see why they'd offer XP pro on the thing, but I fail to see why they wouldn't offer linux on it as well.
Sony prices are overinflated enough, without the $150 XP Pro OEM license tacked on. Especially when you consider you can't sell it to someone else or even run it on another pc (just like any other OEM windows license).
I suppose everyone has their classic favorites, something they cuddled up to in the beginning.
I actually had and used several of the old "classics" I hear about, and none compared with C64/128. Those things were hackable in ways never before dreamed of... kind of like the Amiga, which I would now call vintage if there weren't people still selling the things for a few thousand.
It's good to see BSD getting some well deserved recognition.
Although BSD isn't commonly seen as an end platform in practice (with some notable exceptions), the code and technology in it are probably used in favorite OS no matter what OS that is.
So for once guys, be you linux fans, windows fans, or OS X fans, tip your hats. We should all be encouraging the growth and development of BSD.
"Being widespread doesn't make right. There is a widespread use of "your" in place of "you're" and "axe" in place of "ask." Neither of these usages is correct, but they have widespread acceptance"
Language is defined by common usage. What has widespread acceptance today, will inevitably make it's way into the textbooks and oxford dictionary.
You see, it's people and perception and usage that define these things. Text books are merely an outdated attempt to reflect that usage.
I agree with you about kilo (although here in the US the only things we measure in kilos are cocaine and heroine).
However I think a better solution is to make the k in kilobyte stand for something else and continue to use the standard abbreviations. Again still forcing the marketing guys to use the *iB units.
And 90% of RPGers play on pc's not consoles. Probably because all the RPG's are on the PC. There is a reason DAOC alone typically has over 100,000 players (between the servers) on at a given moment.
Also aside from the occasional expansion, MMORPGers are paying monthly fees, not buying boxsets.
Does anyone like sports games anyway?
Why pay $700 for this remote? It doesn't sound like it actually DOES anything a programmable lcd remote had for $150 can't do.
Don't get me wrong, embedded linux is always good. But this is just another example of Sony ridiculously overcharging for their products... like they always do.
How is that different than any other touchscreen remote you pick up for $150 or less?
Afaik there is nothing special about how this control things, any universal remote can do it, you just don't have suitable buttons and with a programmable touchscreen universal of any kind you eliminate the button problem...
Drinky, your still not fully corrected. While those notations do exist, they serve little purpose and aren't likely to ever be widely adopted.
I can write a new notation on a napkin or a webpage, that doesn't make it correct. Only widespread acceptance can do that. And outside of a few engaging in debates regarding the subject on slashdot, nobody has accepted it.
Personally I might be more inclined it they reversed the standard *B's and *iB's. Since the correct value for *B's was always powers of 2, the marketing guys should be the ones forced to move to *iB.
Do that and I'll accept the change... since it's the tech industry that has to adopt it to make it stick, not the marketing industry, they need to cater to making US not have to change anything.
If they do it that way, we change nothing we do, and completely ignore the rest of the notation (since there is no use for any of it outside marketing) and carry on blissfully wife our lives.
Then the word needs amended to something else, because it's a label we tacked on to express the unchangable value of 1024bytes
It is insightful, well perhaps not insightful, since there are no shortage of people with insight enough to see that rather than dumping a media outlet that is supposed to be unbiased. They should be dropping IE.
Perhaps, modded "correct" would be better?
It's a news outlet, it's not supposed to biased toward Microsoft.
I still have to be anal about it, today people start saying "use" meaning thos aspects of it which copyright allows control over.
:(
In a couple years the distinction is lost and it becomes common knowledge copyright is meant to allow control over the "use". Next thing you know laws start being made and interpreted to that effect.
Seeing myself say that would make me laugh if this weren't already happening with copyright law
"Sure, a top-of-the-line G5 costs $3000, but so does a top-of-the-line PC"
No a top of the line pc costs more like $800-$1200. 5-6yrs ago it would have cost $3000.
"The 12" iBook (which is what I have) is $1099 brand new; less if you get the previous model (the 800MHz one) which is still available in retail stores."
I rest my case? Equivelent pc, $600
"As for desktops, an eMac is $799 new."
I don't even think it's fair to begin comparing a fully integrated eMac to a fully modular PC do you? In terms of performance and flexibility you have to compare Power Macs.
Copyright law granted the holder control over distribution and some forms of copying. It does NOT grant any control over how the material is used beyond copying and distributing!
The gpl works entirely within copyright law, you don't have to agree to it to use the software because you don't need someone to GIVE you RIGHTS YOU ALREADY HAVE. The only reason you EVER don't have the right to use a copyrighted work is if you obtained it illegally.
This is why most copyrighted works aren't licensed at all, books, cd's, etc.
Close but off on a few points:
"Newsflash: licences are contracts.
Not according to the law. A license is a grant to someone to use copywrited material. There is more than enough case law on the differences that I won't go into detail here, google it."
Not quite right. A license is a grant to distribute or copy copyrighted material. You do not need a license to USE copyrighted material. Copyright law grants NO control over the USE of a copyrighted work. It's not like the holder of a copyright OWNS the work, the public owns it (if anyone, since it's an idea and idea can't actually be owned or even unique), he just has the rights the public gave him in the copyright.
The GPL has no restrictions on use because the GPL doesn't rely on contract law, only copyright law. As I've already said, copyright includes no provisions for controling how material is used.
Commercial licenses on the other hand obviously do put restrictions on use. As such they depend on contract law for validity.
There are number of grounds under which they are of questionable legality because of this. First, the contract is asking you to give up some of your rights, and in exchange they'll give you some rights you already have in return (although there is always SOMETHING in there you don't already have to get around this).
Second it's questionable whether you've legally entered into the contract. Click through EULA's have not been tested in a high court as a legally binding contract. So you might still have all your rights.
"Why is that different to the GPL? They're both licences that apply to the use of software. Without a license, you can't legally use any non-public domain software. The GPL is one such license, this is another."
WRONG. The GPL does not apply to use, only to distribution and copying. Copyright law does NOT grant authority to control how material is USED. Licenses which put restrictions on use are relying on CONTRACT law to do so.
The difference (aside from which law to look at) is that you have to knowingly commit to a contract, by default you have the rights which the contract seeks to void, and EULA's restricting use only offer you rights you already have in return for those you give up. It's also questionable whether a click-through EULA or worse, one which is just tossed in the package are contracts which you've ever actually agreed to.
The GPL on the other hand works entirely within copyright law and doesn't rely on contract law. It puts no restrictions on use whatsoever because copyright law doesn't give it a right to. Instead it specifies terms under which you can distribute the software... without that agreement you have no right to do so. Without any license you have the right to USE the software.
If you have possession of copyrighted material, and it wasn't obtained illegally. You don't need a license to use it, further whoever holds the copyright has no legal right to restrict your use.
Pirated or stolen material is something altogether different, you never have a right to stolen material.
"then 5 minutes later they boot back into Windows do play some games."
;)
Thats not really an OS issue. Thanks to winex it's really not much an issue at all
You have to admit Zein, if there is a vendor you don't want involved in the standards process, it's Microsoft.
Their entire business model to date has relied on breaking standards.