The article mentions the Wii in that sentence, yet the Wii is by far the cheapest to develop for, by several hundred thousand, and in some cases a million or more, dollars. I'd say the Wii is the least likely to ever get ads in its games. One more reason to avoid the Dreamcast 360 and Rapestation 3 at all costs.
Not at all, the GPL is a response to copyright law that is more restrictive than some copyright holders would like. If there were no copyright laws there would be no GPL because there would be no need for the GPL. The GPL, however, takes away no rights, it merely restores some (but not all) rights restricted by copyright law.
The GPL isn't a respond to copyright law. It's entirely dependent on it. The purpose of the GPL is to make sure source code is redistributed in software releases, so if there were no copyright laws, the GPL would be violated because nobody would have to redistribute that source code. Therefore, the GPL takes away the freedom to do whatever you want with the source code you download.
I see, so by your definition shoes remove freedom because they don't let me walk through the bars in a jail cell?
Um, what? You walk through physical matter when your shoes are off?
Shoes don't grant me the freedom to do anything I want (although they do grant me the freedom to walk across broken glass without injury) but since they don't help with lava or jail cells they remove freedom?
This is one of the most bizarre metaphors I've ever read. The fact shoes let you walk on broken glass has nothing to do with the GPL restricting what you can do with source code.
Your logic is very broken.
You're one to talk, fella.
You are quite simply wrong. Just admit it and demonstrate that you're a rational person, rather than reacting emotionally and trying to illogically defend your indefensible and factually incorrect argument.
You're right, let me just slip my shoes off and walk on out of this jail cell.
BZZZZT! Wrong! Copyright law takes away the freedom. The GPL restores some of the freedom.
BZZZT. The GPL relies on copyright law to function.
By definition, the GPL removes freedom because it does not allow you to do whatever you want. You'll simply have to accept this fact even as it flies in the face of RMS dogma.
If you don't believe me, look at environmentalism, the new urban religion. You believe in a pristine Eden sullied by mankind that can only be saved through ritual sacrifice 'lest you face the judgement of apocalypse. Non-believers are heretics to be shunned.
So it's not so much that people have to believe in a supernatural deity. I believe they're hard-wired to adopt a cause that makes believers feel ashamed for existing and requires them to force others into sacrificing their freedoms to live the way the believers want them to. This goes for Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, environmentalists, etc. Self-loathers want to rule the world and force you to live the way they want you to "for your own good."
May as well. We contribute less than a percent of the entire amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Everything else comes from volcanoes and water vapor. Combine that with the global temperature records showing no rise in temperature since 1999, one wonders how long politicians can scare voters before they wake up to what's happening.
Of course, environmentalism is a religion, so it's going to be hard to wrench those folks from their dearly held beliefs of a natural Eden sullied by man that can only be saved through ritual sacrifice lest we face the judgement of apocalypse (sound familiar?).
The hatred for the RIAA here is well-established. Out of genuine curiosity, what do Slashdotters think artists and others who work in the music industry should do to protect themselves from piracy? For perspective, here's a thread on an industry forum where employees talk about piracy and ways to prevent it.
And please, no goofy "copyright is dead!" responses, because the GPL relies on copyright just as much as artists do.
Yes, it would. That's what they're trying to do with the 360, in fact. Although that still doesn't address why Vista needs so much hardware just to display windows on the screen and surf the web.
It's not a "non-story." A government organization has banned a new version of Windows.
It is perfectly normal for any organization to not adopt a new OS for a significant amount of time after it is released, years, even.
Vista was released for groups like this last November. Clearly, after testing the OS, the DOT decided it wasn't worth it for them.
There are enough things to harp on Vista without making things up and pretending they have significance...
Who is making things up? A government organization flatly states that there are no compelling reasons to upgrade to Vista and that there are reasons not to. This is bad for Microsoft. It's news.
What this is really saying is that IT in the DOT wants all their systems to be running the same set of software.
No, what it is saying--stated right there near the top of the article--is that the feds see no compelling reason to upgrade to Vista and that there are actually reasons not to upgrade. Your attempt to dismiss this ban with comparisons to MacOS 7.1 (huh?) is cute but irrelevant. Sales to the feds are important to Microsoft's bottom line, and this hurts it.
You're telling me Vista needs 1GB of RAM and 3Ghz just to display windows on the screen and surf the web? OS X does much more on much less.
Re:Does Vista have anything we need?
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 1
Vista feels like something that should have been out in 2003. As for UAC, it's a good idea but a bad implementation. It really is as annoying as people make it out to be, and I don't understand why it appears so often in comparison to OS X.
Re:Does Vista have anything we need?
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 1
You will need DX10 for upcoming games.
Which games? Most PC games these days are cross-platform Xbox 360 ports (sadly), and the 360 doesn't run DirectX 10.
I'm simply stating that if you are going to have right-mouse functionality built into your OS, and sell mice with 2 buttons, why in the world would you have it set to "off" by default?
Because most people in the world only ever use the left mouse button, and Apple knows only power users would want the right mouse button. Those are the people who would go into System Preferences and enable it.
Have you ever done tech support for a Windows user? Have you ever told them to right-click something? It usually goes along these lines:
"Right-click on My Computer." "Click what?" "The mouse button on the right. Click that the My Computer." "Okay." "Now click on Properties." "Left click or right click?"
See that last question right there? You will get it every single time, without fail. And from then on, they ask you that question whenever you tell them to click anything, because they don't understand the right-click menu or when to use it. The right-click menu is bad interface design.
Yes, I know. I was there when they added it (OS 7.6, maybe? Too long to remember). 1995 is still 11 years after the original Mac, thus my "10 years" comment.
They didn't have that support because it was never needed. Windows didn't even use right-click menus until Windows 95.
It took Apple 10 years to add right click functionality to the OS
MacOS supported multi-button mice back in the 90s.
(not to mention another 10 years to add a second button)
Multi-button mice are, what, 10 bucks at Wal-mart? You're not stuck with a one-button mouse if you don't want it.
and even then they turned it off by default. Now it is on by default in the OS, but you have to turn the hardware on (MacBook) since it is set to single mouse click by default. Annoying.
Right-click menus are a complete interface disaster that should be purged from all GUIs. People who obsess over right-mouse buttons are just used to decades of Windows hiding functionality in right-click menus and aren't accustomed to the way OS X presents all that functionality in toolbars and menus right in front of you.
By selling products created by artists who sign contracts with them, not giving shit away for free and having freeloaders defend it by scapegoating them as bad guys.
More from the chorus. Thing is, we ARE customers. Someone may not have paid for every movie on their computer, but most of us DO rent DVDs (often to rip them to our drives), most of us go to movies and a great many even go to concerts.
What a load of bullshit. If you took something without paying for it, you are NOT a customer. Just because you rent a DVD or go to movies once in a while doesn't magically make you an impervious customer who is entitled to download anything they want and make sure a bunch of artists don't get paid. "But I paid for something once! That makes me a CUSTOMER, damn you!" Give me a fucking break.
The problem isn't that the copyright holders are suing their customers
You're not a customer if you downloaded without paying the copyright holder. Please, please, don't say anything else before you make yourself sound even stupider.
Everyone seems to want a change, but hardly anyone seems willing to do what it takes to put meaningful pressure on these media conglomerates.
What "change?" Digital distribution? You've already got it with iTunes. The change already happened. Admit it--you just want to pirate music without any consequences.
When did this whiney sense of entitlement begin on Slashdot? Was it because a generation has now grown up on high-speed connections? To quote George Carlin's description of the current generation: "Gimme that, it's mine! Gimme that, it's mine!"
Slashdot Mirror
The article mentions the Wii in that sentence, yet the Wii is by far the cheapest to develop for, by several hundred thousand, and in some cases a million or more, dollars. I'd say the Wii is the least likely to ever get ads in its games. One more reason to avoid the Dreamcast 360 and Rapestation 3 at all costs.
information provided by 'The Rape of the American Constitution', by Chuck Shiver, published by Loompanics Unlimited.
More liberal hyperbole. I love it. Any mention of Hitler yet? You can't leave out Hitler in a hyperbolic, emotional, liberal rant.
I love left-wing hyperbole on Slashdot. It's entertaining. Apparently, our Constitution has "died," OMG!
The GPL isn't a respond to copyright law. It's entirely dependent on it. The purpose of the GPL is to make sure source code is redistributed in software releases, so if there were no copyright laws, the GPL would be violated because nobody would have to redistribute that source code. Therefore, the GPL takes away the freedom to do whatever you want with the source code you download.
Um, what? You walk through physical matter when your shoes are off?
This is one of the most bizarre metaphors I've ever read. The fact shoes let you walk on broken glass has nothing to do with the GPL restricting what you can do with source code.
You're one to talk, fella.
You're right, let me just slip my shoes off and walk on out of this jail cell.
BZZZT. The GPL relies on copyright law to function.
By definition, the GPL removes freedom because it does not allow you to do whatever you want. You'll simply have to accept this fact even as it flies in the face of RMS dogma.
A Mac commercial doesn't hurt Windows users. Cutting off Mac Office would serve to hurt Mac Office users--Microsoft's own customers.
If you don't believe me, look at environmentalism, the new urban religion. You believe in a pristine Eden sullied by mankind that can only be saved through ritual sacrifice 'lest you face the judgement of apocalypse. Non-believers are heretics to be shunned.
So it's not so much that people have to believe in a supernatural deity. I believe they're hard-wired to adopt a cause that makes believers feel ashamed for existing and requires them to force others into sacrificing their freedoms to live the way the believers want them to. This goes for Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, environmentalists, etc. Self-loathers want to rule the world and force you to live the way they want you to "for your own good."
Just my two cents on the matter.
None of those questions have to do with the RIAA and the questions this expert was asked. Mine did. Next.
May as well. We contribute less than a percent of the entire amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Everything else comes from volcanoes and water vapor. Combine that with the global temperature records showing no rise in temperature since 1999, one wonders how long politicians can scare voters before they wake up to what's happening.
Of course, environmentalism is a religion, so it's going to be hard to wrench those folks from their dearly held beliefs of a natural Eden sullied by man that can only be saved through ritual sacrifice lest we face the judgement of apocalypse (sound familiar?).
Just trying to start a meaningful discussion. Sorry I made that mistake.
The hatred for the RIAA here is well-established. Out of genuine curiosity, what do Slashdotters think artists and others who work in the music industry should do to protect themselves from piracy? For perspective, here's a thread on an industry forum where employees talk about piracy and ways to prevent it.
And please, no goofy "copyright is dead!" responses, because the GPL relies on copyright just as much as artists do.
Yes, it would. That's what they're trying to do with the 360, in fact. Although that still doesn't address why Vista needs so much hardware just to display windows on the screen and surf the web.
It's not a "non-story." A government organization has banned a new version of Windows.
Vista was released for groups like this last November. Clearly, after testing the OS, the DOT decided it wasn't worth it for them.
Who is making things up? A government organization flatly states that there are no compelling reasons to upgrade to Vista and that there are reasons not to. This is bad for Microsoft. It's news.
No, what it is saying--stated right there near the top of the article--is that the feds see no compelling reason to upgrade to Vista and that there are actually reasons not to upgrade. Your attempt to dismiss this ban with comparisons to MacOS 7.1 (huh?) is cute but irrelevant. Sales to the feds are important to Microsoft's bottom line, and this hurts it.
Nobody's forcing you to read it.
And nobody said you're forced to use Vista. They're just posting opinions for those who are interested and want to discuss it.
You're telling me Vista needs 1GB of RAM and 3Ghz just to display windows on the screen and surf the web? OS X does much more on much less.
Vista feels like something that should have been out in 2003. As for UAC, it's a good idea but a bad implementation. It really is as annoying as people make it out to be, and I don't understand why it appears so often in comparison to OS X.
Which games? Most PC games these days are cross-platform Xbox 360 ports (sadly), and the 360 doesn't run DirectX 10.
So I guess your answer to the question is "no" then? Couldn't you have just said that?
Because most people in the world only ever use the left mouse button, and Apple knows only power users would want the right mouse button. Those are the people who would go into System Preferences and enable it.
Have you ever done tech support for a Windows user? Have you ever told them to right-click something? It usually goes along these lines:
"Right-click on My Computer."
"Click what?"
"The mouse button on the right. Click that the My Computer."
"Okay."
"Now click on Properties."
"Left click or right click?"
See that last question right there? You will get it every single time, without fail. And from then on, they ask you that question whenever you tell them to click anything, because they don't understand the right-click menu or when to use it. The right-click menu is bad interface design.
They didn't have that support because it was never needed. Windows didn't even use right-click menus until Windows 95.
MacOS supported multi-button mice back in the 90s.
Multi-button mice are, what, 10 bucks at Wal-mart? You're not stuck with a one-button mouse if you don't want it.
Right-click menus are a complete interface disaster that should be purged from all GUIs. People who obsess over right-mouse buttons are just used to decades of Windows hiding functionality in right-click menus and aren't accustomed to the way OS X presents all that functionality in toolbars and menus right in front of you.
It's not a leak; it's cache. Unused RAM is wasted RAM.
It's just security flaw terminology. You're taking something personally that's not meant to be read that way.
You're not a customer.
By selling products created by artists who sign contracts with them, not giving shit away for free and having freeloaders defend it by scapegoating them as bad guys.
What a load of bullshit. If you took something without paying for it, you are NOT a customer. Just because you rent a DVD or go to movies once in a while doesn't magically make you an impervious customer who is entitled to download anything they want and make sure a bunch of artists don't get paid. "But I paid for something once! That makes me a CUSTOMER, damn you!" Give me a fucking break.
You're not a customer if you downloaded without paying the copyright holder. Please, please, don't say anything else before you make yourself sound even stupider.
What "change?" Digital distribution? You've already got it with iTunes. The change already happened. Admit it--you just want to pirate music without any consequences.
When did this whiney sense of entitlement begin on Slashdot? Was it because a generation has now grown up on high-speed connections? To quote George Carlin's description of the current generation: "Gimme that, it's mine! Gimme that, it's mine!"