Ehm. Native OS X (Cocoa) apps really aren't very close to Linux apps. First of all, they're written in Objective-C, and that'd make it *harder* to properly integrate stuff in GNOME or KDE, I think. But most importantly, the Office ports for OS X use the whole NS (NextStep) framework Apple developers use. There is no way you'll get that ported to GNU/Linux (closed source), which means you either have to use a replacement that hardly works correctly, like GNUStep, or you'll have to build your own libraries. In other words:
It's faster to start with the Windows code than to start with the OS X code.
Same applies to porting MS Office to BSD, or whatever.
Yes. It'd work just as well as the free market does on earth. The best quality you can get! I mean, look at MS! Who can deny that their monopoly exists only because they make the best products around?!
Seriously, my problem is that if you let rich kids explore space on their own, it'll be a long time before normal people are represented up there. And we need to go into space together, not divided by some arbitrary income level.
Yes. It hooked on my mouse pad and I figured I clicked wrong. Dirty mouse ball. Cleaned it. No problems anymore. Are you still gonna call me a retard? Jealous you didn't get mod up +5? Get a life. Good to see you totally shut up about the other things you thought you knew about me. Ah well, suppose it all kinda got to hard for poor little frustrated you. Yes, life sucks. Uhm. Your life, that is. Retard.
Well, what makes it truely universal is that you describe words with graphical properties rather than by having a word for each concept, so it's not really a language, but rather a way of describing parts of a language. What practical uses it has? I'm not sure, but I suppose it could be useful in some cases. Imagine a 17th century englishman trying to communicate with a chinese scholar who don't speak any other languages, other than their native ones. If they'd both understand this universal system, they could still write to eachother without having to learn another language, which is significantly harder than learning this system, judging by how quick that guy got the hang of it. I don't think it's any good anymore these days, though, now that everyone speaks a common language or two
I'm sorry I'm not a native speaker.. jackass (even though I think I do an ok job at English, for a dutch guy) I was referring to "goodness", or the oposite of "evil" (noun OR adjective), anyway. Do you have *any* social skills at all? Where I come from, people correct eachother politely. Might be different were you live... And if you really want to know about my education, I'm a fourth year grammar school student. "Where remedial is unnecessary."
What I think Real Character does is break up not the english language, but the ideas the words in that language represent. Those ideas exist in almost all languages for the largest part - so if you know what eacht "break up" means, you get a description of what the character means, in your own language.
The system might, for example, have a way of saying "this word is a noun, it's something abstract, it's something postive", etc., and you might end up with something that can only mean "good". "Good" in itself is an english word, but if you know the sytem, you could still apply it using another language, and come up with the meaning of the character in your language, or, if you're advanced enough, you might be able to understand the meaning without having to translate (that's how really knowing a language works - you know what is ment by words without having to think about/translate them).
That way, this system'd allow for people who speak totally different languages to understand eachother by describing the meaning of words using a universal system. At least, that's what I think it does. Can anyone confirm?
Wouldn't it be nice if it was that easy. Give grants or loans? Well, that feeds dependency and often goes to the hands of dictators or warlords. Build factories? Your being "economic imperialists" and using the people for cheap labor. Take out murderous dictators? Your trying to "conquer the world". Do nothing? Your being selfish "isolationists". Heck we can't seem to get it right even when we try to feed starving people (see Somalia).
He's talking not opposing new major powers out of a desire to be and remain the sole superpower (admittedly the long-term goal of the Bush administration.), not helping third world countries.. there's a difference between China and Gabon or waddever. What you say might be true, but it's no relevant here. Also interesting you keep insisting on the "we" part.
There is nothing that corporations love more than peaceful cooperative foreign policies. The less barriers the more trade and the more markets to sell goods to. There are a heck of alot more corporations selling butter than selling guns.
Yep. Industrial corps really hated the war in Iraq, too.
Get real. War can be as profitable as peace, and some megacorps just don't give a damn which it's gonna be.
And since I'm in nead of more reading-fodder, I'll go and see if I can get it tomorrow. Anyone know if it's available in Europe yet? Slashdot is too American-centric!:P
If you can't reply in a normal tone, I don't give a fuck what you're saying. We might not agree, but being *polite* is a good thing - especially if you're complaining about RMS being arrogant or whatever. So, if you're can't do that, don't bother replying this time.
I'm not talking licenses here. Of course Linux is GPL code, which makes it Free Software. I'm talking about communities. Linux, though it may be FS in essence, gave birth to the Open Source community as we know it today. The term Open Source was divised to market Linux (for a nice explanation, see Revolution OS. Okay documentary - and if you want proof that RMS can stop talking about himself (some people say he can't), it's good, too.). Which, as you so kindly pointed out, is not the same as the FS movement. This could not have happened if the FSF hadn't developed GNU. Therefore, GNU made Open Source possible. It helped Open Source, even though it doesn't share the same ideals.
The problem here might be that the GPL is both FS and OS, unlike for example, the Mozilla license. Free Software is always Open Source, but OS isn't always FS.
If you want an example: GCC. Can you imagine Linux without GCC? I can't. Someone else would have had to write something similliar back when Linux started off. Would they have? It took the creation of the FSF to build all little lovely tools like that, I don't believe Linux enthousiasts would have been so enthousiastic if work like GCC hadn't already been done for them.
Yes it did. The OS community uses GNU stuff (without GNU, there never would have been OS, too. GNU/Linux would never have skyrocketed as it did if it'd only been the Linux kernel, of course) while it's totally different, so yes GNU has done stuff for OS... as someone just told me "freedom is a double-edged sword". And thank you, but I've read that article.
The problem is they didn't boost GNU in general, Linux boosted OS in general.. which really is not the same as Free Software. Stallman has all these years tried to put more attention to the ideals he and others made GNU for, instead of the stuff Linux stands for, and I can't blaim him for that. I would too if my life's work'd be used to do something you don't agree with.
If people like you'd just start admitting that he's right and that GNU, like Linux, is an important part of GNU/Linux systems, and that FSF did do a lot for the whole OSS community, he wouldn't have to repeat it over and over again.
And I don't really like your remark about "filthy" socialists. I'm guessing you're from the US, but where I live, it's still considered normal to have political ideals - we're at least far away from calling it "filthy". This isn't meant to be a flamebait, but I DO feel offended, and I felt I had to let you know, cuz well, I don't like that.
Trotskyism = Stalinism (idea of permanent revolution and all). Stalin stole most of his stuff from Trotsky, who got most of it from Lenin, who in turn had ideas *somewhat* similliar to those of Marx. And Lenin really was just as bad. Just go read his quotes about how to define 100,000 dead.
Argh! It's jawohl.:P People should get their languages right, too... "ya vol"... Damn stereotypes.:P
On topic: That's not the only thing they've got wrong.. Free Software is all about sharing, but doing so decentralised, and out of free will.. both fascism and communism are forms of state that promote centralised, strong goverment and basically take away people's free will (that is, with marxistic communism.. there's allot of other kinds of socialists out there, o american commie-haters). Both nazi-germany and communist russia can't be compared to Linux, which started out far more anarcho-socialistic, but has now (unfortunatly) ended up mostly libertarian.
But the problem with that competition, as I said, is that it can't last. Sooner or later, one party will emerge victorious, and when that happens, it's all over again. Even worse: is space exploration is only motivated by economic interests, which is the case when competition is the main motive, more important interests will be forgotten. That's the way the market works: if you allow it to run freely, it always does what's best. For itself.
On the other hand, if people would finally lay their bussiness interests to rest and start thinking about what's good for people, we'll be *there* in no time.
Finally some global interest in spacefaring. As long as only one nation has any interest in space stuff, there's never going to be any substantial new developments. That, and the US really doesn't have any right to be the sole ruler up there (although it's our (europe's) own fault, as we just let the US lead every mission and all research). I hope europe, asia, and the US will working together more than they are today, in the near future.
...I think the history sais quite the opposite. The big economic trouble in the thirties was solved only by the goverment stimulating investments, for example (although arguably, the reason for that crash was a combination of both not correcting and correcting; U.S. citizens could borrow money from the goverment (not anti-free market, I'd say, although I can see why one might think it is), but that only caused problems when the market was allowed to run free (waaaay too much banks, etc. - you know what I'm talking about). It has always been the case in Holland (where I live) and lots of other European countries that after a time where the market was allowed to run completely free, a goverment that invested and corrected the market was required to get the economy back running. I can't point at any American example cuz simply, it hasn't been done on a large enough scale as far as I know.
The market can certainly decide for itself, it's just necessary for someone to step in when the market decides (by itself) to do something that's not good. No, the market is NOT sacred, it can certainly make mistakes quality- and morality-wise.
Slashdot Mirror
Ehm. Native OS X (Cocoa) apps really aren't very close to Linux apps. First of all, they're written in Objective-C, and that'd make it *harder* to properly integrate stuff in GNOME or KDE, I think. But most importantly, the Office ports for OS X use the whole NS (NextStep) framework Apple developers use. There is no way you'll get that ported to GNU/Linux (closed source), which means you either have to use a replacement that hardly works correctly, like GNUStep, or you'll have to build your own libraries. In other words:
:P
It's faster to start with the Windows code than to start with the OS X code.
Same applies to porting MS Office to BSD, or whatever.
Fortunatly... we don't even WANT Office. Do we?
Yes. It'd work just as well as the free market does on earth. The best quality you can get! I mean, look at MS! Who can deny that their monopoly exists only because they make the best products around?!
Seriously, my problem is that if you let rich kids explore space on their own, it'll be a long time before normal people are represented up there. And we need to go into space together, not divided by some arbitrary income level.
Yes. It hooked on my mouse pad and I figured I clicked wrong. Dirty mouse ball. Cleaned it. No problems anymore. Are you still gonna call me a retard? Jealous you didn't get mod up +5? Get a life. Good to see you totally shut up about the other things you thought you knew about me. Ah well, suppose it all kinda got to hard for poor little frustrated you. Yes, life sucks. Uhm. Your life, that is. Retard.
(Mod me down for this, it's worth it)
Well, what makes it truely universal is that you describe words with graphical properties rather than by having a word for each concept, so it's not really a language, but rather a way of describing parts of a language. What practical uses it has? I'm not sure, but I suppose it could be useful in some cases. Imagine a 17th century englishman trying to communicate with a chinese scholar who don't speak any other languages, other than their native ones. If they'd both understand this universal system, they could still write to eachother without having to learn another language, which is significantly harder than learning this system, judging by how quick that guy got the hang of it. I don't think it's any good anymore these days, though, now that everyone speaks a common language or two
This was a reply to the flame/troll/waddever in reply to my original post. Clicked the wrong link. Stupid Apple round mouse thingy.
I'm sorry I'm not a native speaker.. jackass (even though I think I do an ok job at English, for a dutch guy) I was referring to "goodness", or the oposite of "evil" (noun OR adjective), anyway. Do you have *any* social skills at all? Where I come from, people correct eachother politely. Might be different were you live... And if you really want to know about my education, I'm a fourth year grammar school student. "Where remedial is unnecessary."
What I think Real Character does is break up not the english language, but the ideas the words in that language represent. Those ideas exist in almost all languages for the largest part - so if you know what eacht "break up" means, you get a description of what the character means, in your own language.
The system might, for example, have a way of saying "this word is a noun, it's something abstract, it's something postive", etc., and you might end up with something that can only mean "good". "Good" in itself is an english word, but if you know the sytem, you could still apply it using another language, and come up with the meaning of the character in your language, or, if you're advanced enough, you might be able to understand the meaning without having to translate (that's how really knowing a language works - you know what is ment by words without having to think about/translate them).
That way, this system'd allow for people who speak totally different languages to understand eachother by describing the meaning of words using a universal system. At least, that's what I think it does. Can anyone confirm?
Wouldn't it be nice if it was that easy. Give grants or loans? Well, that feeds dependency and often goes to the hands of dictators or warlords. Build factories? Your being "economic imperialists" and using the people for cheap labor. Take out murderous dictators? Your trying to "conquer the world". Do nothing? Your being selfish "isolationists". Heck we can't seem to get it right even when we try to feed starving people (see Somalia).
He's talking not opposing new major powers out of a desire to be and remain the sole superpower (admittedly the long-term goal of the Bush administration.), not helping third world countries.. there's a difference between China and Gabon or waddever. What you say might be true, but it's no relevant here. Also interesting you keep insisting on the "we" part.
There is nothing that corporations love more than peaceful cooperative foreign policies. The less barriers the more trade and the more markets to sell goods to. There are a heck of alot more corporations selling butter than selling guns.
Yep. Industrial corps really hated the war in Iraq, too.
Get real. War can be as profitable as peace, and some megacorps just don't give a damn which it's gonna be.
Like iChat AV doesn't have all kinds of new functions. Like.. AV chat. Elegance, simplicity AND advanced features, thank you.
Yeah. I'm from Old Europe.
Geez man. I was kidding. Notice the ':P'? It's been said as a joke more.. perhaps you need to pay a little more attention to what you read?
And since I'm in nead of more reading-fodder, I'll go and see if I can get it tomorrow. Anyone know if it's available in Europe yet? Slashdot is too American-centric! :P
If you can't reply in a normal tone, I don't give a fuck what you're saying. We might not agree, but being *polite* is a good thing - especially if you're complaining about RMS being arrogant or whatever. So, if you're can't do that, don't bother replying this time.
I'm not talking licenses here. Of course Linux is GPL code, which makes it Free Software. I'm talking about communities. Linux, though it may be FS in essence, gave birth to the Open Source community as we know it today. The term Open Source was divised to market Linux (for a nice explanation, see Revolution OS. Okay documentary - and if you want proof that RMS can stop talking about himself (some people say he can't), it's good, too.). Which, as you so kindly pointed out, is not the same as the FS movement. This could not have happened if the FSF hadn't developed GNU. Therefore, GNU made Open Source possible. It helped Open Source, even though it doesn't share the same ideals.
The problem here might be that the GPL is both FS and OS, unlike for example, the Mozilla license. Free Software is always Open Source, but OS isn't always FS.
If you want an example: GCC. Can you imagine Linux without GCC? I can't. Someone else would have had to write something similliar back when Linux started off. Would they have? It took the creation of the FSF to build all little lovely tools like that, I don't believe Linux enthousiasts would have been so enthousiastic if work like GCC hadn't already been done for them.
Yes it did. The OS community uses GNU stuff (without GNU, there never would have been OS, too. GNU/Linux would never have skyrocketed as it did if it'd only been the Linux kernel, of course) while it's totally different, so yes GNU has done stuff for OS... as someone just told me "freedom is a double-edged sword". And thank you, but I've read that article.
The problem is they didn't boost GNU in general, Linux boosted OS in general.. which really is not the same as Free Software. Stallman has all these years tried to put more attention to the ideals he and others made GNU for, instead of the stuff Linux stands for, and I can't blaim him for that. I would too if my life's work'd be used to do something you don't agree with.
If people like you'd just start admitting that he's right and that GNU, like Linux, is an important part of GNU/Linux systems, and that FSF did do a lot for the whole OSS community, he wouldn't have to repeat it over and over again.
And I don't really like your remark about "filthy" socialists. I'm guessing you're from the US, but where I live, it's still considered normal to have political ideals - we're at least far away from calling it "filthy". This isn't meant to be a flamebait, but I DO feel offended, and I felt I had to let you know, cuz well, I don't like that.
That ought to be enough to remove 30% of all internet spam.
Trotskyism = Stalinism (idea of permanent revolution and all). Stalin stole most of his stuff from Trotsky, who got most of it from Lenin, who in turn had ideas *somewhat* similliar to those of Marx. And Lenin really was just as bad. Just go read his quotes about how to define 100,000 dead.
You're right. I should have said marxism-leninism.
Argh! It's jawohl. :P People should get their languages right, too... "ya vol"... Damn stereotypes. :P
On topic: That's not the only thing they've got wrong.. Free Software is all about sharing, but doing so decentralised, and out of free will.. both fascism and communism are forms of state that promote centralised, strong goverment and basically take away people's free will (that is, with marxistic communism.. there's allot of other kinds of socialists out there, o american commie-haters). Both nazi-germany and communist russia can't be compared to Linux, which started out far more anarcho-socialistic, but has now (unfortunatly) ended up mostly libertarian.
But the problem with that competition, as I said, is that it can't last. Sooner or later, one party will emerge victorious, and when that happens, it's all over again. Even worse: is space exploration is only motivated by economic interests, which is the case when competition is the main motive, more important interests will be forgotten. That's the way the market works: if you allow it to run freely, it always does what's best. For itself.
On the other hand, if people would finally lay their bussiness interests to rest and start thinking about what's good for people, we'll be *there* in no time.
Finally some global interest in spacefaring. As long as only one nation has any interest in space stuff, there's never going to be any substantial new developments. That, and the US really doesn't have any right to be the sole ruler up there (although it's our (europe's) own fault, as we just let the US lead every mission and all research). I hope europe, asia, and the US will working together more than they are today, in the near future.
...I think the history sais quite the opposite. The big economic trouble in the thirties was solved only by the goverment stimulating investments, for example (although arguably, the reason for that crash was a combination of both not correcting and correcting; U.S. citizens could borrow money from the goverment (not anti-free market, I'd say, although I can see why one might think it is), but that only caused problems when the market was allowed to run free (waaaay too much banks, etc. - you know what I'm talking about). It has always been the case in Holland (where I live) and lots of other European countries that after a time where the market was allowed to run completely free, a goverment that invested and corrected the market was required to get the economy back running. I can't point at any American example cuz simply, it hasn't been done on a large enough scale as far as I know.
The market can certainly decide for itself, it's just necessary for someone to step in when the market decides (by itself) to do something that's not good. No, the market is NOT sacred, it can certainly make mistakes quality- and morality-wise.