Sure, why retaliate if somebody flies an airplane into a building? Every single one of the victims would've died of something anyway. The terrorists just sped it up.
[Posting to wrong discussion, since I moderated the other one.]
A very lucid comment; I'll have to remember that one. It's a shame that the other people who replied didn't get it.
I generally try to avoid using any kind of analogy on/. since they always cause posters to go off on irrelevant tangents.
The submitter is just a little too clever for their own good. Maybe he should have respected Mr. Orwell's privacy, and not leaked his real name. Now he's at risk for identity theft.;)
See this confuses me. I knew that Eric Blair == George Orwell, so I figured that the submitter was just some pretensious asshole who wanted to appear smart. But then I noticed that the article was submitted by an AC. So what gives? Why confuse people just for the sake of confusing them?
-a
Re:Surprised by Wealth! Then by Total Loss!
on
OpenIPO and Lindows
·
· Score: 1
This is just an extension of the dot-bomb bubble. Now that the institutional investors are leary about blowing hundreds of millions on the latest IPO scam, OpenIPO swoops in to take the money directly from Joe sixpack. If you think about it, it doesn't really matter whether these companies are selling open source or proprietary software anyway because their real flagship product is selling stock.
it took him around 3 months just to remember what each button does, and what's the order of buttons he's supposed to click (call it syntax, if you like), for example to remember that he needs to first choose the ammount of profit for the sale, then choose the parts, then click 'next', then click the little checkmark that says 'print' and then click 'done', which then closes the program and prints out the price offer.
So how come you never wrote him a wizard-like step-by-step interface?
Because BigInsurCo knows how to evaluate risk, but doesn't know anything about Linux?
How is that insightful? Either BigCo is going to insure LittleCo or not. If they insure LittleCo, based solely on LittleCo's "expert" judgement, they still bear all the risk. Now that LittleCo has publicly stated that Linux is free of copyright violation, what useful function do they still serve?
The interesting thing is that the RIAA is only suing P2P users who are downloading music from the big labels (which seems to be what most people are interested in). If all RIAA-owned music was banned from P2P and you could only download indie music for free, wouldn't this meet Downhill Battle's stated objective of making indie music more accessible?
Ahh, but now you've gone from talking about the rights of the user to talking about the rights of the programmer. What exactly are you trying to prove here?
Your problem is that you see everything from an overly narrow perspective. You can only see the GPL in contrast to closed source. But why don't you try comparing both closed source software and GPL software to public domain. From that perspective, both of these licenses restrict your rights, but in different ways.
Unless I'm mistaken, GPL does not restrict any rights. Under copyright law you have *no* rights to begin with, beyond fair use.
This is such a ridiculous semantic argument which is aggravated by the fact that "right" as in permission/authority is not the same as "right" as in correct. In fact, the GPL and copyright both restrict your rights, but in different ways. The only license that truly does not restrict your rights is freeware.
I remember seeing a movie, I believe it was European, presented at the Spokane, Washington World's Fair in 1974. Each seat in the theater had a set of buttons that allowed the viewer to vote on which way the film should continue when it reached a branch point. The film would pause while the audience voted. After the votes were tabulated, the film would continue with the segment that the audience had selected.
From what I have heard, these films are a sham. They can't be bother to film 2^N possible variations. Instead they just film 2 segments for every branch point and have them converge later on.
Don't know about editors, but anyone with a lick of sense can see that after three decades, the War on (Some) Drugs is a failure in every way. Hard drugs are readily available in any urban area, our prisons are overflowing, our society several times more violent, and our liberties eroding.
Sure it's a failure, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a good alternative. You can't say for sure that things would be better if we legalized drugs. Perhaps *bad* is an improvement over *worse*.
I'm not an expert on trademark law, but did this strike anyone as odd? "THERE ARE SOME THINGS MONEY CAN'T BUY, FOR EVERYTHING ELSE THERE'S MASTERCARD" (Reg. No. 2,259,941); *and* THERE ARE SOME THINGS MONEY CAN'T BUY. FOR EVERYTHING ELSE THERE'S MASTERCARD." (Reg. No. 2,297,299)
Read it again. The only difference between the two trademarks is a comma vs. a period. Do you literally have to be that specific in order to protect a trademark? Perhaps you can avoid a lawsuit simply by using a semicolon! (If only patents had to be that specific.)
All it takes is for someone to do something slightly odd, such as subtracting two pointers and storing the difference. (I assume that this technique is smart enought to notice a pointer that points somewhere inside the allocated block.)
What seems dangerous to me is when a networked application has predictable memory addresses. An attacker creates connections using these memory addresses as session ids.
BTW, what happens if an object contains a pointer to itself?
In which language do you beleive Java's garbage collector is programmed ?
I'm not sure. Anyway, that's hardly relevant. Java uses reference counting and a deterministic algorithm to decide when an object is not needed. It is not based based on heuristics. Admittedly, the heuristics are pretty good, but it's still hard to trust an algorithm that "guesses" when an object is no longer needed.
C libraries that "allow the programmer to perceive the library as object-oriented" are great for people who like to reinvent the wheel. C is perfectly capable of supporting garbage collection.
Sure, as a kludge! They *claim* that there is very little risk of memory leaks or accidental crashes due to this technique, but it doesn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies. Wait until hackers start exploiting this code to do resource exhaustion.
I.e. I hope that the NSA won't be recommending C garbage collection for use on nuclear missiles any time soon.
Hmmm... the first time I ran it, it BSOD'ed my computer, but after that it worked fine. Seems pretty professional. Didn't really find very much that Ad Aware missed, though.
I once found Gator installed on my Windows box, yet I never used Kazaa and I never consented to install it. I think they must have installed it via an IE exploit or something. So "infected computers" may not be just a euphamism.
I noticed my dad had it at one point too (although I think he may have installed Kazaa). Anyway, he now runs Ad Aware regularly, and he is absolutely paranoid about cookies (me, I just allow them, then batch delete then every week or two).
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, why retaliate if somebody flies an airplane into a building? Every single one of the victims would've died of something anyway. The terrorists just sped it up.
/. since they always cause posters to go off on irrelevant tangents.
[Posting to wrong discussion, since I moderated the other one.]
A very lucid comment; I'll have to remember that one. It's a shame that the other people who replied didn't get it.
I generally try to avoid using any kind of analogy on
-a
Okay, am I the only one who thinks that AYBABTU is getting a little old (or who can't figure out what made it so damned funny in the first place).
At any rate, shouldn't they be using something a little more piratey, such as "all your doubloon are belong to us?"
-a
I'm from Sweden!
Perhaps you've been pronouncing "go" wrong!
-a
Look, adults have money, kids don't. You want to make money for museum address the money.
Except that adults spend lots of money on their children.
-a
The submitter is just a little too clever for their own good. Maybe he should have respected Mr. Orwell's privacy, and not leaked his real name. Now he's at risk for identity theft. ;)
See this confuses me. I knew that Eric Blair == George Orwell, so I figured that the submitter was just some pretensious asshole who wanted to appear smart. But then I noticed that the article was submitted by an AC. So what gives? Why confuse people just for the sake of confusing them?
-a
This is just an extension of the dot-bomb bubble. Now that the institutional investors are leary about blowing hundreds of millions on the latest IPO scam, OpenIPO swoops in to take the money directly from Joe sixpack. If you think about it, it doesn't really matter whether these companies are selling open source or proprietary software anyway because their real flagship product is selling stock.
-a
it took him around 3 months just to remember what each button does, and what's the order of buttons he's supposed to click (call it syntax, if you like), for example to remember that he needs to first choose the ammount of profit for the sale, then choose the parts, then click 'next', then click the little checkmark that says 'print' and then click 'done', which then closes the program and prints out the price offer.
So how come you never wrote him a wizard-like step-by-step interface?
-a
I think Ingvar Kamprad looks like a nice enough guy to play poker with...??
You would play poker against a billionaire who still flies economy class?? That guy must really love his money.
-a
Because BigInsurCo knows how to evaluate risk, but doesn't know anything about Linux?
How is that insightful? Either BigCo is going to insure LittleCo or not. If they insure LittleCo, based solely on LittleCo's "expert" judgement, they still bear all the risk. Now that LittleCo has publicly stated that Linux is free of copyright violation, what useful function do they still serve?
-a
The interesting thing is that the RIAA is only suing P2P users who are downloading music from the big labels (which seems to be what most people are interested in). If all RIAA-owned music was banned from P2P and you could only download indie music for free, wouldn't this meet Downhill Battle's stated objective of making indie music more accessible?
-a
Ahh, but now you've gone from talking about the rights of the user to talking about the rights of the programmer. What exactly are you trying to prove here?
-a
Blah, blah, blah. Big rant.
Your problem is that you see everything from an overly narrow perspective. You can only see the GPL in contrast to closed source. But why don't you try comparing both closed source software and GPL software to public domain. From that perspective, both of these licenses restrict your rights, but in different ways.
-a
Unless I'm mistaken, GPL does not restrict any rights. Under copyright law you have *no* rights to begin with, beyond fair use.
This is such a ridiculous semantic argument which is aggravated by the fact that "right" as in permission/authority is not the same as "right" as in correct. In fact, the GPL and copyright both restrict your rights, but in different ways. The only license that truly does not restrict your rights is freeware.
-a
I remember seeing a movie, I believe it was European, presented at the Spokane, Washington World's Fair in 1974. Each seat in the theater had a set of buttons that allowed the viewer to vote on which way the film should continue when it reached a branch point. The film would pause while the audience voted. After the votes were tabulated, the film would continue with the segment that the audience had selected.
From what I have heard, these films are a sham. They can't be bother to film 2^N possible variations. Instead they just film 2 segments for every branch point and have them converge later on.
-a
Don't know about editors, but anyone with a lick of sense can see that after three decades, the War on (Some) Drugs is a failure in every way. Hard drugs are readily available in any urban area, our prisons are overflowing, our society several times more violent, and our liberties eroding.
Sure it's a failure, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a good alternative. You can't say for sure that things would be better if we legalized drugs. Perhaps *bad* is an improvement over *worse*.
-a
I'm not an expert on trademark law, but did this strike anyone as odd?
"THERE ARE SOME THINGS MONEY CAN'T BUY, FOR EVERYTHING ELSE THERE'S MASTERCARD" (Reg. No. 2,259,941);
*and* THERE ARE SOME THINGS MONEY CAN'T BUY. FOR EVERYTHING ELSE THERE'S MASTERCARD." (Reg. No. 2,297,299)
Read it again. The only difference between the two trademarks is a comma vs. a period. Do you literally have to be that specific in order to protect a trademark? Perhaps you can avoid a lawsuit simply by using a semicolon! (If only patents had to be that specific.)
-a
Okay, so what if there's a larger cycle (e.g. 2 objects contain pointers to each other).
-a
Wrong! It should be:
1. Read article
2. Post comment
3. ???
4. +5, Funny
Step 1 is optional.
-a
The article actually reads 1994, not 1984, after all perl wasn't released until 1987
Damn... so much for my theory that spam == newspeak!
-a
All it takes is for someone to do something slightly odd, such as subtracting two pointers and storing the difference. (I assume that this technique is smart enought to notice a pointer that points somewhere inside the allocated block.)
What seems dangerous to me is when a networked application has predictable memory addresses. An attacker creates connections using these memory addresses as session ids.
BTW, what happens if an object contains a pointer to itself?
-a
In which language do you beleive Java's garbage collector is programmed ?
I'm not sure. Anyway, that's hardly relevant. Java uses reference counting and a deterministic algorithm to decide when an object is not needed. It is not based based on heuristics. Admittedly, the heuristics are pretty good, but it's still hard to trust an algorithm that "guesses" when an object is no longer needed.
-a
C libraries that "allow the programmer to perceive the library as object-oriented" are great for people who like to reinvent the wheel.
C is perfectly capable of supporting garbage collection.
Sure, as a kludge! They *claim* that there is very little risk of memory leaks or accidental crashes due to this technique, but it doesn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies. Wait until hackers start exploiting this code to do resource exhaustion.
I.e. I hope that the NSA won't be recommending C garbage collection for use on nuclear missiles any time soon.
-a
Hmmm... the first time I ran it, it BSOD'ed my computer, but after that it worked fine. Seems pretty professional. Didn't really find very much that Ad Aware missed, though.
-a
I once found Gator installed on my Windows box, yet I never used Kazaa and I never consented to install it. I think they must have installed it via an IE exploit or something. So "infected computers" may not be just a euphamism.
I noticed my dad had it at one point too (although I think he may have installed Kazaa). Anyway, he now runs Ad Aware regularly, and he is absolutely paranoid about cookies (me, I just allow them, then batch delete then every week or two).
-a
How many people wouldn't trade their principles for almost 2 billion dollars?
You know what they say... a billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon it adds up to real money.
-a