The GPL is as free as the common cold, and uses the same model for survival.
Will you guys take your self-serving business shit somewhere else.
So you, like RMS, will not be happy until it is impossible for a computer programmer to make a living from his occupation. Hard to find much of a difference between that and business owners that make other kinds of jobs obsolete by automating them. The result of both is increased unemployment.
Superior in what way? There's no single measure. For example Clang's error reporting via static analysis is a generation ahead of GCC. And as TFA points out LLVMs modular approach is resulting in far more related projects than are possible with GCCs monolithic spaghetti.
With BSD, you get the freedom to do what you want including locking everyone else out from "your" system.
Why the quote marks? With BSD, you get the freedom to start your own system, starting from some code that was BSD. Your own system, not "your" own system.
In that situation, all the parts that were BSD are still available to anyone else. The only thing that someone else can't get their hands is your own work.
In other words, unlike GPL, it's not viral. It's this viral aspect of GPL that is turning people against it, and towards the more permissive BSD and MIT licenses.
Excess power generation though typically goes to waste - your batteries can't store it and you usually don't get a rebate on grid tied systems, and that means the system takes longer to pay for itself.
In the UK, utilities have to pay consumers for any electricity they put back into the grid from their renewable generating. It's mandatory.
None of the things you mention matter. Facebook's lock-in is the network. People know their family and friends are mostly on Facebook. They know if they go to any other service, very few, if any of those family and friends will be there.
It's hard for any other service to overcome that.
I just don't see anything FB unique that can't be duplicated by G+ or someone else.
And yet G+ is a failure, despite some interesting features at launch. There's a few niche uses for impersonal groups such as computer special interests. But as a network for family and friends, it was dead on arrival. And no feature they can add will change that.
Not only that, but in the last two years, lots of smartphones have come out with a Facebook app as standard. Many people are using those rather than using a browser.
I'm talking the science of how vision works and if you do some basic research you will find that I am speaking the truth.
But you're not. You're assuming that so long as the angle is the same, the display is equivalent for the eye. Yet it's not. The eye has depth perception, both binocular and by focus. People can tell the difference between a small screen close up and a large screen far away. And that fact isn't figuring in your concept of what's happening here.
It's nothing to do with marketing, and everything to do with the two being quite different experiences.
As to visual acuity, you may have noticed that opticians with small consulting rooms use a mirror through which the patient views the chart, in order to increase the distance. They don't simply use a chart that is half the size. By your theory, these two approaches would be identical. And yet they aren't. And that's just the focus part of the difference.
You're right that the changes are often user hostile.
And yet I can't say that I've noticed any reduction in people or postings. About once a year one of my friends will declare they are leaving FB. But that's far outweighed by new people joining.
The part where you say "most". "Most" cultures actually have no problem killing dogs for food.
Well unless you have some evidence for that, we'll have to agree to differ. There are some cultures where it's OK, but your estimate that it is most doesn't even seem worth researching, it's so out of whack with reality
OK, well a laptop may have a higher resolution than a HDTV. And yet even if you plug the laptop into the same sound system as the HDTV, the HDTV experience is better. Few people will argue the contrary.
Yet that's not what comes out from your idea about what math is important. Therefore, your theory is wrong.
Sorry. Different intelligence tests are correlated so being good at one tends to make you good at another.
You can be sorry all you like. Of course there's a correlation. There's not much a slug can outperform a dolphin on. That doesn't negate the truth of what I actually said, in that different animals have different strengths, and that makes it impossible to make a definitive ordered list of the top intelligent animals. There are even tests of intelligence where certain animals outperform humans.
i'm here because i like to make fun of the stupidity of others like yourself
You're not even very good at that. When you appear stupider than the person you try to mock, it doesn't work. Again, that's a problem you bring on yourself by your laziness with the shift and punctuation keys.
Monkey see, monkey do. It's a type of intelligence, but there are others that are tested too, some more important - such as puzzles that have to be solved without being shown the correct solution. For example, squirrels working out how to overcome anti-squirrel bird feeders are showing more intelligence than the monkeys in the examples you mention.
The mirror test is just one test of animal intelligence amongst many. Different animals have different strengths in their intelligence, as one would expect - the intellect of each has evolved for different environments.
This is why I said the order is up for debate. My list is commonly accepted, but by no means absolute. There's no such thing, unless a particular type of intelligence is specified.
Why do you think the mascot for all endangered animals is the panda? It's cute.
It's the logo for one particular charity. The World Wide Fund for Nature. And here's why:
"The Giant Panda mascot of WWF originated from a panda named Chi Chi that was transferred from the Beijing Zoo to the London Zoo in the same year of the establishment of WWF. As the only giant panda residing in the Western world at that time, along with its physical features and status as an endangered species, panda is seen to serve the need of a strong recognizable symbol of the organization. Moreover, the organization also needs an animal that would have an impact in black and white printing."
It's also cute. But you're assuming that's the primary or perhaps sole reason. And that it's the universal mascot. It's neither.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL is about keeping code free.
The GPL is as free as the common cold, and uses the same model for survival.
Will you guys take your self-serving business shit somewhere else.
So you, like RMS, will not be happy until it is impossible for a computer programmer to make a living from his occupation. Hard to find much of a difference between that and business owners that make other kinds of jobs obsolete by automating them. The result of both is increased unemployment.
Superior in what way? There's no single measure. For example Clang's error reporting via static analysis is a generation ahead of GCC. And as TFA points out LLVMs modular approach is resulting in far more related projects than are possible with GCCs monolithic spaghetti.
With BSD, you get the freedom to do what you want including locking everyone else out from "your" system.
Why the quote marks? With BSD, you get the freedom to start your own system, starting from some code that was BSD. Your own system, not "your" own system.
In that situation, all the parts that were BSD are still available to anyone else. The only thing that someone else can't get their hands is your own work.
In other words, unlike GPL, it's not viral. It's this viral aspect of GPL that is turning people against it, and towards the more permissive BSD and MIT licenses.
Excess power generation though typically goes to waste - your batteries can't store it and you usually don't get a rebate on grid tied systems, and that means the system takes longer to pay for itself.
In the UK, utilities have to pay consumers for any electricity they put back into the grid from their renewable generating. It's mandatory.
I wonder how many other countries are the same.
None of the things you mention matter. Facebook's lock-in is the network. People know their family and friends are mostly on Facebook. They know if they go to any other service, very few, if any of those family and friends will be there.
It's hard for any other service to overcome that.
I just don't see anything FB unique that can't be duplicated by G+ or someone else.
And yet G+ is a failure, despite some interesting features at launch. There's a few niche uses for impersonal groups such as computer special interests. But as a network for family and friends, it was dead on arrival. And no feature they can add will change that.
Their "model" isn't even sophisticated enough to count FB accounts. They are simply counting people typing the word "facebook" into Google.
Not only that, but in the last two years, lots of smartphones have come out with a Facebook app as standard. Many people are using those rather than using a browser.
However, a smaller screen with the same resolution as the movie projector (which isn't that high-res BTW) will look just as good
And yet it doesn't.
It may not "feel as big"
And there you have it. You accept there's a difference.
I'm talking the science of how vision works and if you do some basic research you will find that I am speaking the truth.
But you're not. You're assuming that so long as the angle is the same, the display is equivalent for the eye. Yet it's not. The eye has depth perception, both binocular and by focus. People can tell the difference between a small screen close up and a large screen far away. And that fact isn't figuring in your concept of what's happening here.
It's nothing to do with marketing, and everything to do with the two being quite different experiences.
As to visual acuity, you may have noticed that opticians with small consulting rooms use a mirror through which the patient views the chart, in order to increase the distance. They don't simply use a chart that is half the size. By your theory, these two approaches would be identical. And yet they aren't. And that's just the focus part of the difference.
You're right that the changes are often user hostile.
And yet I can't say that I've noticed any reduction in people or postings. About once a year one of my friends will declare they are leaving FB. But that's far outweighed by new people joining.
The part where you say "most". "Most" cultures actually have no problem killing dogs for food.
Well unless you have some evidence for that, we'll have to agree to differ. There are some cultures where it's OK, but your estimate that it is most doesn't even seem worth researching, it's so out of whack with reality
OK, well a laptop may have a higher resolution than a HDTV. And yet even if you plug the laptop into the same sound system as the HDTV, the HDTV experience is better. Few people will argue the contrary.
Yet that's not what comes out from your idea about what math is important. Therefore, your theory is wrong.
Sorry. Different intelligence tests are correlated so being good at one tends to make you good at another.
You can be sorry all you like. Of course there's a correlation. There's not much a slug can outperform a dolphin on. That doesn't negate the truth of what I actually said, in that different animals have different strengths, and that makes it impossible to make a definitive ordered list of the top intelligent animals.
There are even tests of intelligence where certain animals outperform humans.
Sure he gets to complain afterwards. Who's to stop him?
So putting your face really close to a very high resolution laptop screen would be as good as IMAX?
No, it wouldn't.
And a Hi Def TV isn't as good as a cinema screen either.
There's no substitute for scale.
I was wondering why the hell he thinks he needs to drag a laptop to a movie theater....
You're a bit dim if half a dozen possible reasons don't pop into your head straight away.
i'm here because i like to make fun of the stupidity of others like yourself
You're not even very good at that. When you appear stupider than the person you try to mock, it doesn't work. Again, that's a problem you bring on yourself by your laziness with the shift and punctuation keys.
Monkey see, monkey do. It's a type of intelligence, but there are others that are tested too, some more important - such as puzzles that have to be solved without being shown the correct solution. For example, squirrels working out how to overcome anti-squirrel bird feeders are showing more intelligence than the monkeys in the examples you mention.
The mirror test is just one test of animal intelligence amongst many. Different animals have different strengths in their intelligence, as one would expect - the intellect of each has evolved for different environments.
This is why I said the order is up for debate. My list is commonly accepted, but by no means absolute. There's no such thing, unless a particular type of intelligence is specified.
As I said, the exact order is open to debate. But few would be consistent with the list of animals we are comfortable killing for sport or food.
Here's one intelligence task chimps vastly outperform humans on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
And here's a full documentary, with many examples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
What part of "but most cultures find it unacceptable to kill them for sport or food." did you not understand?
Perhaps Dolphins find it repulsive and hyperbolic in the other direction.
Now what does your gender have to do with anything? Are you implying superiority over the other gender?
Why do you think the mascot for all endangered animals is the panda? It's cute.
It's the logo for one particular charity. The World Wide Fund for Nature. And here's why:
"The Giant Panda mascot of WWF originated from a panda named Chi Chi that was transferred from the Beijing Zoo to the London Zoo in the same year of the establishment of WWF. As the only giant panda residing in the Western world at that time, along with its physical features and status as an endangered species, panda is seen to serve the need of a strong recognizable symbol of the organization. Moreover, the organization also needs an animal that would have an impact in black and white printing."
It's also cute. But you're assuming that's the primary or perhaps sole reason. And that it's the universal mascot. It's neither.